torn asunder

so, what was the cutoff level they used in your test? 15 ng/ml, 20 ng/ml, 50 ng/ml, 100 ng/ml? do you know? just because you didn't fail a test, doesn't mean it wasn't in your system. passive intake of pot may not increase your levels enough to register on a test, but for a previously unexposed person, it can (and does) still have an effect. you can't state difinitively that there was no thc detected in your system - you simply can't. all you can honestly say is that the level in your system from indirect exposure was less than the cutoff limit of the test. considering your long-term use of the drug, it's likely that you wouldn't notice the effects of a smaller amount like that, but in no way does that mean it wasn't there. 2nd point - in my opinion, testing once a month is almost completely ineffective, especially at the recommended level of 50 ng/ml. how long had you been clean (meaning, not directly smoking) when they set you up for testing? i'm willing to bet your first test was after a month, so they could be sure your previous use was clear of your system (unless they took some baseline tests to see/watch the levels drop, or something). even with chronic or daily use, the range of detection can vary from 7-30 days depending on the amount smoked, individual body metabolism rates, and the previously mentioned cutoff point of the test. you've said before (a while back, in other threads) that you have a fast metabolism. this alone could drastically cut down the amount of time it stayed in your system, making the tests even less effective.

check *this* out!!! 80 yr old man deadlifts #396! (oh, and i forgot to mention, he only weighs in at #165!!)

you're kidding, right? what do you base this on?

i'll rephrase it rev. - i should have said 'that logic' is faulty, sorry. i fall back into generalized 'you' phrasing sometimes. in my defense, your original post mentioned *nothing* about a doctor, and that is the post to which i was replying. you'll also notice that i said... you didn't add the bit about the doctor until later. in fact, you got rude before you even mentioned the doctor, in your second response. it was the first thing you did. you made a post, originally, that had a pretty bold claim, with absolutely nothing to back it up, and then got mad because someone questioned you. if you had told the bit about the doctor/hospital in the original post, it would have gone a long way to explain things.

look, i was only pointing out how you were contradicting yourself, saying people shouldn't act like dicks, yet talking about acting like one. the supposed "explanations" you gave just come across as justification for rude behavior. as for drunk people behaving badly, well, that goes without saying, they're drunk. i admit, though, that the following statement didn't register properly with me, so i misinterpreted your post; although i still don't condone it, i can see where you're coming from, blowing smoke at people who are insulting you in such a way. still, i think the more mature thing to do is either ignore them, or laugh at them. but that's just me.

eh, don't say "never again" - it's good for you to occasionally "cheat" on a diet. most of the weight gain people see from a splurge is only the weight of the food they ate. one day of higher calories isn't going to mess it all up. in fact, it's a good idea to follow the 90% rule - 90% of your calories should be from fairly clean sources i.e. good, healthy foods. if you eat 2000 cal/day, and if they're all really healthy foods, 200 cal of that could come from a kitkat or something! (one of my personal faves! )

i'm not even going to engage in a discussion that hitler's brought into. it's ridiculous. yes, it *directly* harms an individual non-smoker. *that* is wrong. i don't consider people damaging themselves as wrong either, but smoking does harm others. 1) i agree that other, better accomodations could be made. 2) i disagree that smokers weren't given a voice, unless i'm missing something (and i might be, i'll admit). was there no debate on this law? was it passed in the dead of the night, with nobody around, snuck in with another bill? i may be making an incorrect assumption, but i figured this had been debated. i'm open to being educated if i'm wrong! blanket "they" statements suck. so does the attitude that revenge is fun/worthwhile. for that matter, so is the assumption that the people against whom you're acting out deserve it. are you going to ask people if they supported this law before blowing smoke in their face? if you don't, you're being just as inconsiderate and rude as you seem to think all smokers are.

sure... i know 30 yr old who don't, so i'm sure *some 14 yr olds do...

agreed - obviously, there are major differences in religions, but i've found that, at their core, they all (or most, at least) have many commonalities in basic philosophy. it's the differences that create so much uproar.

wait, you're comparing smoking with child molestation? you're kidding, right? i was disagreeing with the statement you made that "if one of us is wronged, we're all wronged". you're predicating your argument on the idea that smokers are being wronged, and i'm just saying that that's not *necessarily* true. as for the contact buzz issue, just because you haven't had it happen doesn't mean it doesn't. i'm talking about non-*smokers* getting a buzz. if someone is already stoned the point is moot. lastly, if you don't want people to be angry with you for smoking, maybe it would be a good idea to not intentionally blow smoke in their face!

hey, first of, drop the attitude, dude. "i don't have a fucking link"? settle down... what's wrong with you? i asked a simple question, because i was doubtful about the credibility of your statement. you need to stop taking things so damn personally, & just lighten up, ok? secondly, you're using faulty logic. people have been getting tonsillitus for centuries. just because your friend used these things, it *in no way* proves that they were the cause. i mean, if that were the case, i could say that "i started lifting weights a couple months ago. then i got a really bad sinus infection. weight lifting causes sinus infections, so i'm not gonna work out any more!!" now really, does that make any sense? just because you believe it doesn't make it true...

what if i don't consider it being wronged? selfish? really? second hand smoke obviously has an effect on people - ever been at a party where people are smoking weed & gotten a contact buzz? how do you think that happens? yeah. the same shit that the active smoker takes in, is also taken in by people who are just around it. hearing all of these smokers complain about "not being able to do as they wish" with their bodies is irritating as hell. you know, i really don't care what people do to themselves - they can smoke all they want. thing is, a smoker *can't* restrict their habit to only themselves. it's not like liquor, or orally ingested drugs, where the effects are self-contained. who the hell do smokers think they are? what gives them the right to say, " you don't like smoke, go somewhere else!", but yet, complain about non-smokers saying the same thing? it doesn't make any sense... and for the record, i've mentioned before that i do think there are better ways to go about this, such as air filtration requirements/inspections for smoking establishments, or the creation of "smoking licenses" for businesses. i do think there need to be better accomodations for smokers, such as separate rooms, or outdoor patios, etc. this business about "25-100 ft from a public building" is fucking stupid...

heh, i was just thinking the same thing, minus the long day part...

that's precisely what i'd like to know - sources, rev? because it sounds like b.s. (not that you're making it up, but that someone fed you false information...)

i'll tell you what - if someone intentionally blows smoke at me as i'm walking in somewhere, there likely to get their ass kicked. why the hell do you think it's ok in any way to treat people with such disrespect? people who, for all you know, had absolutely nothing to do with this, and maybe even were against it? that's so immature it's pitiful.

OMFG i want one of these!!!

ah, i see - it's also a line in a cherry poppin' daddies song, called "drunk daddy". anyway... the pope, cuz robertson's a giant pansy! umm... mel gibson's character in "mad max", or mel gibson's character in "lethal weapon"!?

cherry poppin' daddies reference?

i confess to still having active crushes on a few dgn'ers, but i'm still unable to share the details. (not much of a confession, is it?)

liftin' weights, biotch!! *flexes*

i'm willing to bet that the doctors to whom you're referring are MD's - i always go to DO's as they tend to lean more towards/are more open to a holistic approach to health. my last Do even did spinal manipulations, which is how i decided to pursue chiropractic care. MD's, in my experience, just prefer to throw meds at every single issue the come across.

i used to know someone named achilles - he was really a heel... (waits for collective groan)

no welcome for you!!