Esoteric, (Hidden,) Knowledge

I see, so absinthe has additional interactive substance besides ethanol. To parse the different aspects of both your positions one of his positions was that absinthe is not psychedelic or hallucinogen. So where as his position could be modified as to the chemical composition of absinthe in the light of your information I wouldn't say you owned him on dumbass assumptions but it could be just my abhorrence to the idea of slavery. The idea of owning someone for their mistakes is contraindicated for the free exchange of ideas.. If anyone owns anything it is experience and you both refer to it in your summations and on this level pretty much anything goes or is legitimate to relay. We can make a mistake and correct it which it appears he did. Now the entheogenic use of tobacco does not use the same delivery system as the commercial products that most and on this basis there is a whole different and more benign relationship to the plant. So it is not just chemical composition of the native plant that delivers disease but the habit forming use of chemically engineered products. For one tobacco smoke was not significantly inhaled in it's native form. I am sorry to hear that your relative dying of lung cancer from smoking made you deaf at least to some propositions. From a broader perspective every body dies.

Just so I get the idea of what constitutes plagiarism or not or whether or not we should be called on it, I noticed that the bottom portion of your post that you referred me to was a quote from an unnamed source. I wonder how that is different from what I had done in the other thread where you suggested plagiarism on my part and fornication with me? We are all little fuckers at some level. Better that than an overall fucked upedness! I don't take it as an attempt by yourself to take credit as the source of the information except to say you had it and some one else didn't which was only a temporary position in that you shared the information so any advantage you thought you had was short lived. In my case I assumed others were privy to the information and it's source in the public domain. In fact I was correct in that assumption as Meagain demonstrated. It is possible that the communal awareness of the material I was quoting is relevant to a certain generation who had been popularly exposed it and not to others, which is why you may not have recognized the material, don't know if you did or not. Anyway I don't want to press you on the issue it is a rhetorical exercise for consideration only unless you want to comment on it. The reason I even bring it up is that we are fundamentally informed through relationship and the more distant we are from each other to that extent we remain uninformed of each other and significantly of ourselves. My feeling is for the free unfoldment of everyone concerned.

 

Tldr

 

the wormwood could have been bunk or just weak or old or something and that's why there was no effects, or maybe the effect is just so mild that it wasn't noticeable.

or maybe it really doesn't do anything, never tried it but I thought thujone is supposed to be psychoactive at least in some way.

I don't usually notice the effect of the caffeine in cola but some people get effects from it.

 

Well I can see that there are levels of intoxication and this it is apt and why I say the function of intoxication is being intoxicated to whatever degree. You may find other functions in an intoxicated state that do not depend on being intoxicated like being able to walk around. Your statement about state dependent memory is interesting and not too divergent in my opinion if you care to expound.
from wikipedia:
"Substance intoxication is a type of substance-induced disorder[1] which is potentially maladaptive and impairing, but reversible,[2]and associated with recent use.[3"

 

Equals I find it too much effort to be informed.

 

"Thujone (i/ˈθuːdʒoʊn/[1]) is a ketone and a monoterpene that occurs naturally in two diastereomeric forms: (−)-α-thujone and (+)-β-thujone.[2][3] It has a menthol odor. Even though it is best known as a chemical compound in the spirit absinthe, recent studies reveal that absinthe contains only small quantities of thujone, and therefore it is unlikely that thujone is responsible for absinthe's alleged psychedelic effects." (from wikipedia)

 

Caught that already.

 

Nicotine in and of itself is actually been shown to be quite benign, it's smoking tobacco thats dangerous. You've owned nothing and I'm done with your drug-addled ass.

 

Does that suggest gluteal injection?

 

sure in garbage discount tobacco is there reconstitute tobacco. Not in top shelf cigs there isn't. The paper used to have 'chemicals' in it to keep it burning and of course there is glue to hold it into a tube.
Previous to smoking tobacco it was chewed or finely powdered and sniffed up the nose. Nicotine is addictive no matter how you look at it.
Actually the levels of tar in cigarettes was mandated to be lower in all cigs across the board ( sometime back in the 80's)so lighter tobacco was used in all cigarettes to meet these regulations.

 

Ha! Excuse me, I meant his drug-addled brain, no telling about his sorry ass.

 

From the paper I posted earlier,
"This manuscript begins with a discussion about cigarette design. In order to understand how additives function, one must first understand the design features of cigarettes. As we will see, some of these design features affect the delivery of additives. For example, the introduction of reconstituted tobacco or RECON, is the primary means by which ammonia chemistry and other chemicals are introduced into a cigarette. RECON can be considered a “chemical delivery” system."

You are mistaken in the idea of high quality cigs not containing RECON. It may be true that higher tier cigs contain finer base tobacco ingredients relating to lowered tar, but cigarette construction and the use of RECON to enhance tolerant and addictive qualities is the same regardless. There is still chemical burn enhancement in paper it is now just a different chemical.

It is true that nicotine is addictive any way you look at it. However tobacco contains properties that hold down it's addictive habit or things that make the experience ingested in some forms and rates as intolerable. A significant function of the chemical alteration of tobacco products is to increase toleration of the noxious effects that would otherwise naturally inhibit the administration style or medium and amount consumed.

As far as what came first chewing sniffing or smoking, different cultures did some things and not the other. Pipe smoking was common among some cultures from the outset of their relationship with it. Quite a functional dose can be consumed through the mucus membrane of nose and mouth allowed to wallow there without inhaling smoke. It is this relational dynamic that I also refer to when suggesting that tobacco itself and cigarettes in particular are a different animal presenting a different animal relationship to consumption.

 

Having said that there may be attempts by some companies to introduce a purer form of tobacco product in order to improve their market base. All the same, industry curing or controlling of stages of decomposition affect the consumption rate as does hybrid tobacco strains developed for use in cigarette construction.

 

All you have to do is tear apart a cigarette and examine the tobacco under a loop to see recon material. The papers have recently been mandated to not have burn chemical due to fire hazard issues. As I pointed out, American Spirit manufactures cigarettes with 100% natural tobacco with no additives. If you tear one apart and examine the material, compare it side by side with say a Camel straight, (which BTW contains a different material than all other Camel products and is much more expensive)
The only difference is the camel contains a slightly higher percentage of burly.
BTW If it matters to anyone, I don't smoke or use tobacco products as I did at one time.

 

Oh, the paper used in cigarette construction is also made of RECON. I don't know if that is true for roll your own kinds of paper.

 

Not true. Cigars do, not cigs. If you see a brown wrap, it's recon. Use your own built in chemical analyzer, your olfactory's. Take your favorite rolling paper, burn it and smell the smoke, also examine the ash. Do the the same with a paper from a cigarette. The main difference is the thickness of the paper. Cigarette paper is thicker because if it was too thin it would be an ugly yellowish looking thing after just a couple of puffs, just like a joint, lol

 

Yeah i allowed for that in post 1534. On the paper they switched from glycerol for the reason you state, fire hazard being the overt admission by tobacco companies, although their own research indicated other problems with it which is why really they consented. They replaced it with another chemical the name of which is in the document I posted. It satisfied the flammability issue to an extent. There are many stages of RECON which are concerned with particle size distribution, the length and style of cut and blending of different tobacco strains. So RECON is not just about additives but also the chemical delivery system, i.e. smoke ability. A cigar for example is a different assembly or delivery system by virtue of the way it is assembled. Cigar smoke generally not inhaled to the degree as cigarette smoke.

I am an occasional user of tobacco.

 

You must have stocks in Phillip Morris...

 

You must have stocks in Phillip Morris...still owning

Also it should be mentioned to get this shit drug out of Ayahuasca concotions.