>Protip: Don't piss off Oph. It won't end well.

As in, he'll make an ass of himself? Yeah.

I was actually being entirely sarcastic there. But if you want to angst about it: It's more than fully possible that a small enough dose of meth wouldn't do anything drastic. Small doses of methamphetamine are actually prescribed for the regulation of ADHD, hence the feeling of being focused. High doses of meth are what cause euphoria and have the long-term adverse effects of addiction and both physiological and psychological damage. It is one of most addictive drugs out there, assuming you take enough to get hooked; that's a simple fact. It's not an invention of "pop culture" and it's not something made up by The Man to keep kids off of drugs. Considering that you weren't euphoric and didn't feel particularly keen to take it again, I'm pretty sure that you just didn't take enough. That or you have a superhuman tolerance to doses of methamphetamine which would prove addictive to normal human beings. Which seems more likely?

Get your facts straight before calling someone out for "misinformation."

PS: I know you want to seem like one of the cool druggies who's here to reveal all of the lies about the negative effects of drugs, but stuff like this-
-isn't really helping your case. Sure, you won't get a nicotine addiction from smoking one cigarette, or even a pack of cigarettes. There are cases of people who started smoking, smoked for a month straight, and then quit with no withdrawal symptoms. But the nastier stuff, ie heroine or meth- go pump enough of that ♥♥♥♥ into your bloodstream, then come back and tell me you're not addicted after one time. Even if your claim was true in your personal case, or even if it was true in the majority of cases, it would not be an absolute truth. There's too much variation within the human race for you to predict that something like that would hold true in all cases. There will always be an exception to the rule.


tl;dr -> U r dum.

It's not an invention of "pop culture" and it's not something made up by The Man to keep kids off of drugs.

That's mostly true in a normal human. Keyword: Normal. Not everyone is normal.

That's not even the central argument. He mainly got his panties in a knot because I said he might have just used too small a dose. The addiction thing is sort of an aside.

You cannot discount medical science simply because we're all unique snowflakes. I'm sure there's someone somewhere who could smoke meth once and be addicted, but for the vast majority of the human race (didn't you make a point similar to this?), that's impossible. There's a reason that another term for an addiction is a "habit".

Actually I got my "panties in a knot" because you come in talking nonsense like it's the gospel truth. That ♥♥♥♥ is dangerous.

That is a little odd though, seeing as meth is supposedly (not "definitely") one of the more (not "most") addictive drugs out there.

I'm going to ignore the personal attack, that was just childish.

"Clearly" my ass, you're a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥, and "clearly" don't know anything about methamphetamine or its effects.

You made a good point on IRC about it taking something like two weeks for the brain to rewire itself and become "addicted" to something, though. I wasn't actually aware of that. Still, even if it doesn't immediately happen: If someone uses a drug and likes the effects, isn't it a fair assumption that they'll continue using it long enough to be addicted? They might not technically be 'addicted' the first time they try it, but they might be as good as.

Also found this a little interesting: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showth ... p?t=144430 Apparently getting high off of meth the first time you use it is a relatively rare occurrence. If your "meth head" friend took enough to get high and you took the same amount, it just might not have been enough for you.

Yup, I was definitely saying that like it's an unarguable and indisputable fact. Also, how it is nonsense? Are you going to tell me that meth is not more addictive than most drugs are?

Clearly didn't use enough etc.

There's absolutely no way you could have known that. At all. You were just bullshitting. But you already said you were just being sarcastic, why didn't you clarify that and let it alone instead of treating what you called a sarcastic remark as your legitimate argument and attempting to tell me that I wasn't high? This whole argument is stupid, and poorly picked.

I smoked up someone who had never smoked before recently and he didn't get high either. You really need to focus on sucking hard and getting it in your lungs when you smoke, and you should probably smoke out of a pipe instead of a joint, as its much more efficient. Although Orphanim might say this is bad for you, in my opinion you should try to hold it in your lungs long enough so that hardly any smoke comes out with you exhale. Don't asphyxiate yourself of course, but try to maximize the contact that the smoke makes with the lungs. Also try and take several hits before breathing out and be economical by burning it until nothing is left. If its time to pass the bowl take hits off of it before its lit again; most people waste this "stale" smoke by not hitting it just because it isn't as fresh. Some people also like opening the windows of their car, but as long as you air it out afterwards you should keep them closed. This allows you to "hotbox" yourself and get higher off of any smoke that you haven't inhaled. The smell shouldn't linger if you drive awhile with the windows down.

Just keep in mind that the point is to absorb the chemicals in the smoke, not puff out big clouds of it like a cigar.