Micro-dosing

[Vaked420]

The lower dosage of LSD does not have a thing to do with the time of your trip. Some people go full Alice In Wonderland on the smallest of doses.

Didn't mean to say that it would make it shorter, just less intense for the long duration so I wasn't tripping balls for 12 hours and rather just buzzin for 12 hours instead.

Well it's not a drug, but as far as entheogenic plants go, psilocybin saves lives.

Psilocybin isn't a drug?

I'm a minimalist when it comes to most other drugs as well; it feels healthier. I often thoroughly enjoy taking micro doses of psychedelics, but to be honest, full doses are still my favorite.

Actually, I've recently been on a bit of a micro-dosing experimentation craze. I've been trying to find other psychoactive herbs that I can use medicinally. First I tried tobacco (Swedish snus); I decided that this one felt toxic even at the smallest doses (tightness in the chest), so I discarded that idea, although it did have some interesting effects nonetheless. More recently I tried kratom, with mostly disappointing results. Even as little as a gram of kratom makes me feel lethargic, even with the supposedly stimulating strains.

Next on my list is one that I've rarely heard of anyone microdosing -- salvia divinorum, which I'll try using the traditional "quid" method, or maybe brewing a tea. Some people say that it has antidepressant qualities.

Microdosing has definitely opened my eyes to the possibility of trying other drugs out with low doses to find ones I like. Phenibut, GHB, 2C-B, 2C-E and, if/when the opportunity arises, pure high quality cocaine in south America. I'm sure there are others I can't think of, but this has just been a revalation of mine lately that drugs are just drugs. Just like with cannabis it is all about the research you do and respecting the substance. Though cannabis is the most forgiving and generally the healthiest, the same applies to other substances.

And for me I still prefer full doses, it just gives me a wider variety of options and makes full dosing more special. Same with cannabis, I can microdose the majority of the time so that when I really dose well, it is apparent haha

 

[muunch]

2C's are fun to microdose. Phenibut not so much, just get GHB imo.

 

[invertedisdead]

Psilocybin isn't a drug?

Not by my definition. I realize everyone has a different interpretation of these things, but, IMO a plant is not a drug, BUT you can make drugs from plants.

As an example, I would not consider coca leaf a drug, and it doesn't seem like much of a problem by itself; but I know people with serious addictions to cocaine.

Not to pluck any feathers here, but I would argue the way we vaporize cannabis is more "drug-like" than psilocybin, for the pure fact that cannabis does not have any psychoactive effect in its raw form. Instead we force one out of it.

 

[muunch]

There is nothing wrong with a little gentle and mutual coercion

 

[EverythingsHazy]

drug
drəɡ/
noun

1. 1.
   a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.
   "a new drug aimed at sufferers from Parkinson's disease"
   synonyms: medicine, medication, medicament, pharmaceutical; More

Psilocybin is most definitely a drug. Just because something comes from nature doesn't make it less of a drug. It's just a natural one, instead of an artificially extracted/produced one.

THC, caffeine, and alcohol are also all drugs.

 

[invertedisdead]

Psylocibin is most definitely a drug. Just because something comes from nature doesn't make it less of a drug. It's just a natural one, instead of an artificially extracted/produced one.

THC, caffeine, and alcohol are also all drugs.

Like I said... Many subscribe to this definition. I do not. Even water has a physiological effect when ingested...

There is nothing wrong with a little gentle and mutual coercion

According to you, or Mother Nature?

 

[muunch]

My statement was entirely sarcastic as I'm quite baked right now. You could probably get effects from cannabis without smoking/vaporizing and simply eating it ala the hasheaters or whatever so idk. By the logic of "no coercion" wouldn't that mean eating is simply one of these artificial indulgences you speak of?

 

[invertedisdead]

Cannabis has zero psychoactive effect until decarboxylation, that includes eating it.

 

[Vaked420]

Cannabis has zero psychoactive effect until decarboxylation, that includes eating it.

I believe a very small portion of the thc naturally breaks down into thc-a within the flower, so I wouldn't be surprised if eating a large large amount got you some effects. But ya basically wouldn't get you anything.

I get what you're saying and I'm a strong believer in all of us having whatever definition we prefer, since at the end of the day what are words but a socially agreed upon sound that means a socially agreed upon, yet usually fairly vague and disagreed upon definition that allows us to communicate better. My personal definition, which I think helps to relate the similar concept that you were referencing, is that anything that modifies the brains functionality is a drug. We have been told to believe that drugs are the things that clearly intoxicating, and also those legal ones that clearly doctors know how to use in a mystical magical way that only they understand. But when you look at it, sugar is completely a drug. If I eat something sweet, I get a mad sugar rush, and then crash from the negative bodily response. That's a drug if I've ever had one haha. And exactly, even water has an effect on the brains operation.

It is just my choice to believe that all things are drugs, as that what makes most sense to me. Yes some you must extract, and some you must even completely artificially synthesize like LSD, but aren't these just evolutionary advancements, similar to how the ability to chew made us more able to eat more things than before, our brains and the ability to create, synthesize and engineer methods to create new ways to alter consciousness are as "genuine" as the ones we can pick up in the forest and eat. It's nice to know that people have been eating mushrooms for thousands of years and have been just fine, and that should definitely be accounted for in deciding what is safe to do, but it isn't a tarnish in my opinion of for say of plugging(sticking dissolved solution) of chemically synthesized 2C-B up your ass. While completely man made and a completely modern way to alter consciousness, the way I see it is like a beautiful graphically designed game, vs. an amazing view of nature. They are both an amazing sight, and while I may personally prefer the view of nature, some people just prefer the artificial and the man made, which is essentially also a part of nature if you hold the belief that humans are a part of nature therefore our creations are a part of nature.

Anyways I kinda just spewed word soup out, but all I meant to say was a drug to me is just anything that can alter consciousness, which I believe is pretty accurate to most well-respected definitions. I just believe that people underestimate what can be categorized as altering consciousness.

 

[EverythingsHazy]

I get what you're saying and I'm a strong believer in all of us having whatever definition we prefer, since at the end of the day what are words but a socially agreed upon sound that means a socially agreed upon, yet usually fairly vague and disagreed upon definition that allows us to communicate better.

Wouldn't defining things based on individual preference rather than widely standardized definitions make the use of words in conversation with anyone other than yourself, meaningless. We could both be talking about drugs, and think we have the same beliefs, but when we decide to define certain terms, come to realize that our beliefs are vastly different.

Like I said... Many subscribe to this definition. I do not. Even water has a physiological effect when ingested...

The difference between water and psilocybin/THC, is that water is necessary for all human life, and the other substances are not. Keeping the body running the way it was intended to, is different than altering it's naturally occurring physiological/psychological processes.

Well it's not a drug, but as far as entheogenic plants go, psilocybin saves lives.

Not by my definition. I realize everyone has a different interpretation of these things, but, IMO a plant is not a drug, BUT you can make drugs from plants.

For the record, fungi aren't plants. Also, a psychedelic mushroom isn't just psilocybin. It is a bunch of chemicals that happen to include psilocybin.

Are you saying that if we artificially synthesized psilocybin that was identical to what is found in these mushrooms, that THAT would be considered a drug, but the same chemical produced in the mushroom wouldn't?

When we vaporize or eat a mushroom for psychoactive/medical purposes, we aren't intentionally using the entire plant/fungi for the sake of using it, as much as we are ingesting the drugs they contain, with everything else just being extra that's there since we didn't bother extracting the specific chemicals that we desire. It doesn't make much sense to me, for that lack of extraction to change the description of the same chemicals.

 

[invertedisdead]

Wouldn't defining things based on individual preference rather than widely standardized definitions make the use of words in conversation with anyone other than yourself, meaningless. We could both be talking about drugs, and think we have the same beliefs, but when we decide to define certain terms, come to realize that our beliefs are vastly different.


The difference between water and psilocybin/THC, is that water is necessary for all human life, and the other substances are not. Keeping the body running the way it was intended to, is different than altering it's naturally occurring physiological/psychological processes.



For the record, fungi aren't plants. Also, a psychedelic mushroom isn't just psilocybin. It is a bunch of chemicals that happen to include psilocybin.

Are you saying that if we artificially synthesized psilocybin that was identical to what is found in these mushrooms, that THAT would be considered a drug, but the same chemical produced in the mushroom wouldn't?

When we vaporize or eat a mushroom for psychoactive/medical purposes, we aren't intentionally using the entire plant/fungi for the sake of using it, as much as we are ingesting the drugs they contain, with everything else just being extra that's there since we didn't bother extracting the specific chemicals that we desire. It doesn't make much sense to me, for that lack of extraction to change the description of the same chemicals.

You're right, fungi aren't plants. You'll have to forgive me as I'm sometimes stoned when I type something... Do you like Terrence McKenna?

I never said a pshyedelic mushroom is just psilocybin, I was referring to the species: psilocybin cubensis

And artificially synthesizing ANYTHING is never a good idea, WITH RESPECT TO NATURE
Don't you realize this is precisely how big pharma kills more people a year than any thing? Synthesized isolated prescription drugs.

 

[dgmulf]

I basically agree with everything @EverythingsHazy wrote.

Wouldn't defining things based on individual preference rather than widely standardized definitions make the use of words in conversation with anyone other than yourself, meaningless. We could both be talking about drugs, and think we have the same beliefs, but when we decide to define certain terms, come to realize that our beliefs are vastly different.

This. Guys, you can't just invent your own definition of a word.

If there isn't a satisfactory term to describe whatever you're talking about, you have to invent a new term. Like... brug. Or shmrug.

Jokes aside, maybe the phrase you're looking for is "unprocessed plant medicine" or something to that effect, @invertedisdead?

 

[invertedisdead]

I basically agree with everything @EverythingsHazy wrote.



This. Guys, you can't just invent your own definition of a word.

If there isn't a satisfactory term to describe whatever you're talking about, you have to invent a new term. Like... brug. Or shmrug.

Jokes aside, maybe the phrase you're looking for is "unprocessed plant medicine" or something to that effect, @invertedisdead?

Invent my own definition? That's funny, as I took the definition straight from Webster...

My beliefs still stand... entheogens aren't drugs.


It's obvious we share different perspectives, no harm no foul. But to say I'm inventing definitions is respectfully, way off.

 

[muunch]

this shit cray. i see where you're coming from but there's a hole in your logic.

you smoke/vape concentrated cannabis man. you can't make an argument against "synthetic isolates" when you use them.

This is offtopic as hell but ye

 

[dgmulf]

Invent my own definition? That's funny, as I took the definition straight from Webster...

Which definition is that, if you wouldn't mind sharing?

 

[invertedisdead]

this shit cray. i see where you're coming from but there's a hole in your logic.

you smoke/vape concentrated cannabis man. you can't make an argument against "synthetic isolates" when you use them.

This is offtopic as hell but ye

It's not a hole in my logic, I'm well aware concentrates lack the synergistic values of the original plant. I've openly exclaimed that on this website? I think they taste better? I'm human, too BTW I'm not completely incapable of succumbing to earthly desires. I also vaporize cannabis? I'm not claiming some kind of superiority. I just don't think Mother Nature deserves her beautiful creations to be labeled with an offensive generally misunderstood term, is all.

Which definition is that, if you wouldn't mind sharing?

It's the first thing that pops up in Google when you type in "drug definition" - I thought it was culling from Webster but perhaps not. Do you know where Google sources it's definitions?

"a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."

Do you consider bread a drug?

 

[t-dub]

Microdosing has definitely opened my eyes to the possibility of trying other drugs out with low doses to find ones I like . . . and, if/when the opportunity arises, pure high quality cocaine in south America.

After a line or two of ultra pure, micro-dosing, at least for me, goes completely out the window.

I believe a very small portion of the thc naturally breaks down into thc-a within the flower,

Its THC-a that breaks down into THC when the carboxyl group is removed.

 

[Little Bill]

Sorry but I'm too stoned to add any value or even understand much of the discussion. It's all OK though.

 

[dgmulf]

It's the first thing that pops up in Google when you type in "drug definition" - I thought it was culling from Webster but perhaps not. Do you know where Google sources it's definitions?

"a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body."

Do you consider bread a drug?

You're absolutely right: under that definition, bread would technically be considered a drug. But, to be fair, everybody agrees as a general consensus to exclude food, water, and air from that definition.

I think I see your basic point. Even though, technically, the word "drug" refers to everything from green tea to methamphetamine, a lot of people use the word to connote a specific category of substances which are highly dangerous and prone to abuse, like heroin, cocaine, and PCP. They exclude substances that are (in their mind, at least) relatively safe, like coffee and alcohol.

I get that you don't want to lump cannabis into the same category as crystal meth. One is obviously safer than the other. What I might take issue with is the idea that a substance is inherently safer because it's all natural, and that there is something wrong with artificially processed or synthetic materials. Belladonna is an incredibly dangerous plant in its natural form, but by contrast, pure LSD has a ridiculously high therapeutic index (safety measure).

 

[seaofgreens]

@invertedisdead

You are attempting to include "maintaining a normal physiology" as being semantically equivalent to "altering normal physiology," thus causing an "effect."

That is also due to the vague definition being presented. So lets look at a more detailed definition:

noun
1.
Pharmacology. a chemical substance used in the treatment, cure, prevention, or diagnosis of disease or used to otherwise enhance physical or mental well-being.
2.

1. any substance recognized in the official pharmacopoeia or formulary of the nation.
2. any substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in humans or other animals.
3. any article, other than food, intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of humans or other animals.
4. any substance intended for use as a component of such a drug, but not a device or a part of a device.

3.
a habit-forming medicinal or illicit substance, especially a narcotic.
4.
drugs.

1. chemical substances prepared and sold as pharmaceutical items, either by prescription or over the counter.
2. personal hygienic items sold in a drugstore, as toothpaste, mouthwash, etc.

5.
Obsolete. any ingredient used in chemistry, pharmacy, dyeing, or the like.


Vocabulary is somewhat subjective in English, yes, which allows for word creation, slang etc... but it is also concrete, so that it can be understood by all speakers. A term like "drug," is not as open to interpretation in this sense as you are trying to imply, and you are attempting to broaden the semantics in a way that doesn't work.

 

[invertedisdead]

Lol y'all are on a good one, ask me for a definition then criticize it for not matching your opinion, as if I'm the one that wrote the fucking definition. Not sure what makes you think you can just infer different definitions to fit your agenda as if they are somehow more valid.

How could different definitions for words even exist unless they were open to some degree of interpretation?


To exclude food as drugs is a complete oversight, food is the biggest drug in the world. Why do you think it's called the FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION? You think they aren't related? What do you think your brain does on mono sodium glutamate?

Free up your heart
PEACE & BLESSINGS
ONE LOVE

 

[seaofgreens]

It's not an argument, or a lynch mob man. I'm just trying to help us both get to a mutual understanding of how language fundamentally works. Or more precisely, communication.

In order for any form of communication to be successful, the speaker has to be understood by the listener. for this to occur, both parties must be both aware of and willing to follow a certain framework or set of rules, i.e. language, in order for synthesis to occur.

In this case, the word "drug," has a particular meaning that supposedly implies a shared understanding of said word among its speakers.

That then creates the opportunity for a web of associated content that can be associated to the word drug, as in the above example, it is common to associate the words "drug" and "addiction" together, and so it is easy to see where the lines become blurred through associative content.

However the word without the picture and the associated words which bring the overall meaning together, you don't have the same leg to stand on. Your worded example then, the Food and Drug administration, is dealing with two separate concepts, encapsulated under one human agency. Otherwise, it would just be called the Food administration, but then also for some inexplicable reason, also enforced drug policy.

Again, I'm not attacking you. I find the conversation linguistically interesting is all.

 

[max]

Micro-dosing is the thread topic, and cannabis is the forum topic.

If you guys want to talk about another topic, please find an existing thread or make one.

 

[cannabis.pro]

https://mic.com/articles/166192/mic...need-for-a-functional-minimal-high#.mH1w6zLHb

 

[DaBongLord]

Hey guys,

Im new to micro dosing and have been unable to get a hold of super accurate scales (mainly because my house mate is worried it might show intent to supply by having it around the house) so was wondering if anyone could make a visual guide of how grinded up herb looks at say, like 0.02g, 0.05g, and 0.15g

I've been just cutting down slowly to crumbs and now by dosage has changed again, and it would be nice to have something accurate to go off to find my 'threshold tolerance' and enjoy all the benefits of true micro dosing

cheers in advance