Poppers Poppers Poppers - General

do you know what i mean when i say 'pop it'? [editline]14th February 2011[/editline] If suffocation is a factor how can it even come into play if my mouth isn't even around the opening for more than 20 seconds at a time.

i never said suffocation was a factor. i'm just saying i've heard the arguement before that holding this in long doesn't get you higher it just gives you a high from lack of oxygen to the brain, which isn't true because suffocation highs don't last 2 hours or however long the average weed high is.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;28044572]Popper sesh with the boys tonight, novice puked his guts up. I think the tobacco shot down his throat lmfao. [editline]14th February 2011[/editline] sheeeet mega bump[/QUOTE] Poor fucking kid You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, giving a rookie smoker a fucking popper

he said he could handle it, wasn't going to tell him no. [editline]14th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28044988]i never said suffocation was a factor. i'm just saying i've heard the arguement before that holding this in long doesn't get you higher it just gives you a high from lack of oxygen to the brain, which isn't true because suffocation highs don't last 2 hours or however long the average weed high is.[/QUOTE] i never said you said it was a factor! all i said was i don't see how it could be a factor wtf

lol rate my post dumb? smarked would have been more appropriate, cause it's true. i mean isn't it a stereo type that high people are scrambled?

i rated you dumb because you didn't understand what I was talking about i was agreeing with you saying suffocation isn't even a factor holy fuck. also you care about ratings lmfao

I'M JUST JOKING BAW! :smithicide:

okaay :v:

There's no reason to hold the smoke in your lungs for any longer than 5 seconds. Holding the smoke in longer [b]does not[/b] get you higher.

i don't care what you say there is substantial difference between holding it in 5 10 and 20 seconds

No, there really isn't Bro, you've been spoutin off a lot of bullshit lately...

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28050008]i don't care what you say there is substantial difference between holding it in 5 10 and 20 seconds[/QUOTE] oxygen deprivation, freshhhhhhmannn

this thread should've been about alkyl nitrites

[QUOTE=NeoSeeker;28050008]i don't care what you say there is substantial difference between holding it in 5 10 and 20 seconds[/QUOTE] Proof that there isn't a difference [url]http://www.schmoo.co.uk/thclub/methods.htm[/url] and [url]http://www.saferinjecting.net/drug-c...-safer-use.htm[/url] studies done in Australia indicates that 95% of the THC is absorbed within the first few seconds. Sure, you'll get slightly more THC if you hold it in longer, but it's at the cost of increased health risk. (Courtesy of MindTwistah)

dude i seriously don't give a shit about what a study says, that doesn't negate my personal experience. even if you could legitimately prove me wrong i still would think i'm right, this is going nowhere.

lol you're just ign'ant, meng

naw my nervous system is just ignant*. *better than yours. i can get much higher off weed than you :p

idunno man, i've gotten noticeably higher by smoking smaller amounts and holding it in for longer rather than packing full bowls and exhaling more quickly.

I've tried it and compared it many times

Yea I was kinda being a devils advocate there, I also agree that you feel higher after holding it for longer, but maybe its more of a metal thing/placebo? who knows.

i just had an idea, maybe the study they did was with shitty weed that didn't have that much thc, whereas more potent bud has more thc content and takes longer to absorb. some shit like that. but i'm 100% sure you get higher holding in smoke. and i'm quite sure it's not just placebo because i don't even think about holding my hits in anymore, i just exhale after like 5-10 seconds as if i was taking a really deep breath. i'm not consciously like OMG OMG HOLD IN SMOKE GET HIGHER also when was that study done? they don't even have a link to the study in the first link (the second one doesn't work). but both personal experience as well as that of just about all of my friends has shown that holding in your hits definitely gets you higher. as far as tar buildup or whatever, fuck it. you end up coughing it out anyways. and it's healthier than cigarettes, which i stopped smoking. so i can live with a little lung damage. [editline]15th February 2011[/editline] also aren't the cannibinoids also responsible for making you high? there's nothing in the article about the time it takes to absorb cannibinoids.

Yea it could quite be that the article is wrong, i just took it from Mindtwistahs post, i was a little skeptical of the second one cause it said the water in a bong filters 50% of the thc out, which i am sure is wrong as i get much higher from a bong.

well i wouldn't be suprised if bongs filtered a little thc out, but the majority is still there and you're also inhaling all of it at once so you're going to get fucked up anyways. 50% is a retarded number though. i now declare that study illegitimate and the people who wrote that article should get raped in the nose by a horse.

Yea after rereading them sober I agree that it is bullshit, it says joints are the most efficient way of smoking marijuana, which is bullshit.

LOL that's hilarious, every study i've heard has said joints are the [I]least[/I] effective. vape is definitely the most effective, but lately i've been smoking out of a woodstock pipe and it's sooo great for conserving your bud. smoke like two or three times off a nick and since it's awesome bud and i hold in my hits i get fucked up every time. i wish i had a good camera, would take some pictures.

I only smoke the dankest of shit my kind sirs. and i only hold my breath for like 12 seconds on average sometimes 15 maybe even 20.

yeah for awhile I put a lot of stock in studies but I don't know. even if I toke a joint pretty much non stop, I can smoke three times as much weed in a j as I do in my bong and get way higher from the bong. Pipes are in the middle. I think the amount of bong smoke you can take at once is a big factor. Uhhh, and I think the fact that nearly ALL these studies use weed with 5% THC (like some NIDA guideline or something) maybe skews the results compared to smoking with 20%+ bud. vaporizing is clearly the most efficient. my vape is like a perpetual motion machine for weed. I used to buy a twenty sack and use it all in two days with bong chops. Now I pack vape bowls half the size of bong chops and get just as high. Afterwards I'll save the vaped weed. You can usually re-vape it but I've found I like mixing it with fresh weed before vaporizing again. When ALL the weed is really dry and brown, I'll use it for bong chops. It burns really quickly and has gotten me surprisingly high. This shit never ends.

You guys derail threads like mad.

I roll my blunts with nothing but weed [editline]15th February 2011[/editline] Happens all the time in DD. derailing is our thing

When I smoke in my room, I gotta ghost my hits. Normally, I don't hold the smoke in for longer than 3-4 seconds. I haven't noticed any difference between the two.