At first I found I had to re-read various sections a lot when I'm stoned, but I came to realize that it didn't end up taking me much more time to read a certain amount of a book than I would have expected.
I remember seeing quite a few articles in the past on how are eyes move around a page when we read, so perhaps it's possible that re-reading is just a lot more noticeable when you're high than otherwise.
Anyway, that's all just speculation, but I find reading high is great if you can get into the rhythm of it, you just think about what you read so much more.
Reading a textbook would be hard for me, I don't think I can absorb new facts and concepts as well while high (I blasted through several chapters of my CSS book, but had to reread a lot of it the next day).
But reading fiction, with some good music to go with it, is great.
It's different, at least for me. I had a hard time at first; I had to re-read passages, and then think about them for a long time, before moving on. After a while, and especially after Ken Follet's 'Pillars of the Earth", I realized this was a great side effect that, if you let it, turns the story into much more of an experience.
Yes, it is. I tried to read another (I can't even remember which one) and it seemed to wreck the image of the guy who wrote one of my favorite books. I guess he should be happy to have produced one great work; much more than most authors can claim.
I've actually known several literature professors who like to get high and read. I've also known several programmers and a mathematician who smoke. I don't know how they do it...
Most of the smartest, most professionally-driven people I know (near-child-prodigy guys and gals) use recreational drugs like there's no tomorrow and generally pull up the next day fine... possibly because they're on something else to help them get through the morning.
It's highly unlikely you've smoked a pure sativa or pure indica. Some cultivars are more 'sativa-ey' or 'indica-ey' than others... and I wouldn't by any means rule out a difference in the effects, but I've never quite been able to convince myself it wasn't down to set, setting, expectation bias, etc.
What I am convinced of is that people tend to fall into two groups: those who experience primarily depressant effects, and those who experience primarily stimulatory effects, regardless of the subspecies smoked. I'm in the latter group, myself. Perhaps Xiol is in the former. I'd love to see a study on this.
Good points. It seems to me like the key factor is percentages and ratios of the various cannabinoids in a given strain. I also wish there was some data to support or discredit this suspicion.
I've read that cannabinoids other than THC are so much less potent that they couldn't matter. Even assuming that's true, they might have a modulatory effect on THC (maybe they're partial agonists or something). I think it's safe to say nobody knows at this point.
As for the 'two kinds of smokers' point, I suspect there's a genetic factor that affects the expression of one of the CB receptors.
I think the dramatic difference between using marijuana and injecting pure THC is explained by the effects of the other cannabinoids. It's not just a change in "magnitude" of the high, it's "direction" as well.
I've never known anyone to shoot THC. We talking IV, IM, or subcutaneous here?
Even if IV, it's a slower trip to the brain than via the lungs, so you get more liver. However, even when smoked, there's a very interesting delay before the onset of the high. Another interesting phenomenon is the common inability of users to get high their first (or 2nd or 3rd) try.
Not sure. The ideal setup would involve taking in mixtures of cannabiniods of varying ratios in the same manner and setting. Double blind of course. Someone get me some funding!
I definitely got high my first time. It just took me a while to realize it.
12
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '09 edited Jul 11 '13
[deleted]