|
Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
TheDemon
has typed IDDQD,Godlike!

Registered: 11/15/05
Posts: 356
|
LD50 of THC
#5437144 - 03/24/06 04:20 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
So, people have probably told you its impossible to die from THC. Wrooooong, Its just very difficult to do. The ld50 is...
1260 milligrams per kilo gram
So for every Kilogram you weigh, you would need 1.26 pure grams of THC.. Just incanse any of you serious head cases out there can get your hands on pure thc, either synthetic or extracted somehow... Heres a lil equation for ya
(Your weight(in lb) * 0.45359237) 1.26 = The ammount of pure THC ( in grams) you'de need to off yourself.
Keep in mind, that only HALF of the rats died at this dose, so only half of the people would.
Thanks to Basidiocarp, And the ALMIGHTY MERCK!!! /me worships merck
Edited by TheDemon (03/24/06 04:51 AM)
|
DadeMurphy
H4x0r

Registered: 01/29/03 
Posts: 908
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: TheDemon]
#5437169 - 03/24/06 04:48 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
-
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------
Edited by DadeMurphy (03/24/06 04:53 AM)
|
RandomHero
�.ǝןqısuodsǝɹɹı


Registered: 09/10/05
Posts: 6,008
Loc: shroomery.org
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
fanfuckingtastic
-------------------- Been you to have any spike, man?.
|
TheDemon
has typed IDDQD,Godlike!

Registered: 11/15/05
Posts: 356
|
|
/me laughs at the term haxor
|
Shroomer215
Consumer ofshrooms

Registered: 02/06/06
Posts: 64
Loc: In your Mind.
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: TheDemon]
#5437341 - 03/24/06 06:59 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
wow thats crazy to know.. I dont think anyone can even afford that much hahhah
|
PurpleKush
Rational Lunatic


Registered: 03/20/06
Posts: 3,421
Loc: Above The Law
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: TheDemon]
#5437419 - 03/24/06 07:34 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
TheDemon said: /me laughs at the term haxor
did you notice his name was Dade Murphy? wasnt that the dude in Hackers? what a waste of a movie...  what up ZERO COOL?
|
blissedout


Registered: 11/11/04
Posts: 22,320
Loc: Yonder
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: TheDemon]
#5437441 - 03/24/06 07:43 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
You worship a phamaceutical company?
--------------------
|
Mead

Registered: 07/26/02
Posts: 2,519
|
Re: LD50 of THC *DELETED* [Re: TheDemon]
#5437454 - 03/24/06 07:49 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by Mead
Reason for deletion: .
Edited by MeadMadeMe (03/24/06 07:55 AM)
|
kaniz
That one, overthere.


Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 4,166
Loc: Ontario
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: Mead]
#5437458 - 03/24/06 07:52 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
did you notice his name was Dade Murphy? wasnt that the dude in Hackers? what a waste of a movie...
Hackers is one of the best movies of the 90s. I love it, its so bad it's good, its so cheesy its funny, and really - you get to see Angalina Jolies tits, how can any movie where you get to see her tits be a waste?
|
PurpleKush
Rational Lunatic


Registered: 03/20/06
Posts: 3,421
Loc: Above The Law
Last seen: 3 years, 10 months
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: kaniz]
#5437485 - 03/24/06 08:08 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
kaniz said:
Quote:
did you notice his name was Dade Murphy? wasnt that the dude in Hackers? what a waste of a movie...
Hackers is one of the best movies of the 90s. I love it, its so bad it's good, its so cheesy its funny, and really - you get to see Angalina Jolies tits, how can any movie where you get to see her tits be a waste?
good point, i cant argue with tits.  but the movie spawned all the kids who THINK they know everything about computers and that whole "l33t h4x0r!!!" mentality gets on my nerves when people dont really know shit.
i myself dont know a damn thing about computers, so maybe i shouldnt have anything to say about it. and maybe dademurphy up there does fuck shit up with hacking and whatnot. but the acting in that movie was soooooo horrible, and the lines were soooooo predictable and annoying. i'd have to smoke 100 lbs of grass just to be stoned enough to watch that movie again lol
besides, if you want to see celebrities naked, thats what the internet is for!
|
DadeMurphy
H4x0r

Registered: 01/29/03 
Posts: 908
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
|
"I love it, its so bad it's good, its so cheesy its funny." It's hilarious.
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------
|
TerrapinSunrise
Stranger
Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 350
Loc: KY
|
|
rats are not people. the LD50 in rodents is not the same as the LD50 in humans. it is realistically impossible to die from THC. did they mention what killed them--was it respiratory depression? in the human brain, there are more cannabinoid receptors than any other receptor (if i remember my psychopharmacology correctly). however, there are none (or insignificantly few) in the brain stem--the region responsible for regulating breathing, heart rate, etc. MOST drugs (opiates, alcohol, etc) kill you by depressing the brain stem--thus you stop breathing and it is not within your control to decide this. but you can smoke pure THC all day long and this would never happen... peace.
|
DadeMurphy
H4x0r

Registered: 01/29/03 
Posts: 908
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
|
It's true that rat LD50s cannot really be extrapolated to humans for all the reasons you mention. Just as an aside, in alot of drugs (this may not apply to the cannabinoids) the LD50s go DOWN (by weight/body mass) as size of the animal in question goes up. So an elephant will require less of a drug per kilogram of body mass than a dog, the dog less (mg/kg) than a rabbit, and the rabbit less than a rat. Based on such a trend, one might predict that the human LD50 would be significantly less than the rat LD50.
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------
|
kaniz
That one, overthere.


Registered: 07/23/04
Posts: 4,166
Loc: Ontario
|
|
Quote:
PurpleKush said:
Quote:
kaniz said:
Quote:
did you notice his name was Dade Murphy? wasnt that the dude in Hackers? what a waste of a movie...
Hackers is one of the best movies of the 90s. I love it, its so bad it's good, its so cheesy its funny, and really - you get to see Angalina Jolies tits, how can any movie where you get to see her tits be a waste?
good point, i cant argue with tits.  but the movie spawned all the kids who THINK they know everything about computers and that whole "l33t h4x0r!!!" mentality gets on my nerves when people dont really know shit.
i myself dont know a damn thing about computers, so maybe i shouldnt have anything to say about it. and maybe dademurphy up there does fuck shit up with hacking and whatnot. but the acting in that movie was soooooo horrible, and the lines were soooooo predictable and annoying. i'd have to smoke 100 lbs of grass just to be stoned enough to watch that movie again lol
besides, if you want to see celebrities naked, thats what the internet is for!
Well, at that time - I was actually into hacking. Long before the movie came out actually, I remeber spending hours war dailing, finding systems, tinkerng with them - trying to figure out how they work.
Discovering things like ARPANET, X25, making my own 'boxes' (when phreaking boxes actually worked).
Mind you, I was generally more on the 'whitehat' side of things - just really interested in security, systems and figuring out how they work. Was never a 'omg, lets root a system and destroy it!',
Ran my own BBS system for ages, last few years of it private/invite-only, great days 
That being said, I loved the movie for how cheesy and inaccurate it was and what a poor representation of hacking it was. Mind you, had they really shown what it was like - it would of made for a boring as shit movie now wouldnt it?
/ANY/ movie that shows off technology and computers and networking is done in a much fancier and entertaining way to watch then it is in reality.
Like compiling that Virus (?? think it was) in Swordfish - had they really just shown a bunch of linking and compiler messages flash across the screen for 10 mins, it would of been a yawn. But hey, a neat little 3D animation is far more amusing to watch.
If anyone took the movie to be anything serious or even contain a microscopic hint of the reality of it - then they are a fool. But, if you took it as a tounge in cheek cheesy laugh - it was a riot 
and the soundtrack aint bad either.
Edited by kaniz (03/24/06 09:13 AM)
|
AlwaysFlowin
Never Pass onGrass


Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 347
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: TheDemon]
#5437734 - 03/24/06 09:52 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Based on that formula it would take me 103.5 grams of PURE THC to have a 50% chance at dying. We'll say a GOOD heady strain such as Ak-47 has something like 20% THC content. 103.5 grams (pure THC) * 5 = 517.5 grams of headies (and more than 4 times that amount for lesser quality cannabis). So basically I'd have to extract all the THC perfectly from 517.5 grams of headies, then ingest it all at once... and I'd still have a 50% shot at living. Pretty damn good
|
TheDemon
has typed IDDQD,Godlike!

Registered: 11/15/05
Posts: 356
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: TheDemon]
#5438032 - 03/24/06 11:49 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
OMG SLASH AND RAZOR?
"Hey kids! This is how to get free phone calls!"
Good movie, anyways.... Eating that much pure THC wouldnt be that difficult, i think the method of consumption was sesame iv??? so you might have to IV it, but still.... I mean hell, it could be done. Whose up for mass suicide via THC? hahahahahaHAHAHAA
|
shneck
Stranger


Registered: 09/16/05
Posts: 222
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
DadeMurphy said: It's true that rat LD50s cannot really be extrapolated to humans for all the reasons you mention. Just as an aside, in alot of drugs (this may not apply to the cannabinoids) the LD50s go DOWN (by weight/body mass) as size of the animal in question goes up. So an elephant will require less of a drug per kilogram of body mass than a dog, the dog less (mg/kg) than a rabbit, and the rabbit less than a rat. Based on such a trend, one might predict that the human LD50 would be significantly less than the rat LD50.
"this may not apply to the cannabinoids" - reasonable. "Based on such a trend, one might predict that the human LD50 would be significantly less than the rat LD50" - you contradict yourself, crooked logic. Also, you don't even differ between intravenous injection and oral/smoked consumption which in case of lipoacids is extremely ignorant.
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/hemp/iha/iha02210.html "The LD50 values for Fischer rats treated orally with single doses of delta-9-THC and delta-8THC, and observed for 7 days, are 1910 mg/kg and 1980 mg/kg (for males) respectively and 860 mg/kg (for females) [26]. The histopathological changes caused by these extremely high doses were essentially the same for both delta-8-and delta-9-THC. LD50 could not be determined in either rhesus monkeys or dogs as single oral doses of up to 9000 mg/kg of either delta-8- or delta-9-THC in dogs or monkeys were non-lethal. Histopathological alterations did not occur in either dogs or monkeys."
Conclusion: "THC has an LD50 that is far beyond an ingestible amount. THC cannot be absorbed into the blood past a certain limit, and this limit is much less than the LD50. No overdoses or deaths have resulted from THC."
Peace.
|
the_psychonaut
psychonaut

Registered: 01/09/05
Posts: 394
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: shneck]
#5438397 - 03/24/06 01:40 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
not saying hes wrong. but am i the only one who noticed he used the LD-50 for rats? if im not mistaken LD-50s can be massivly different for each animal, just look at the ld-50 for lsd between humans and elephants
-------------------- never be afraid to let your mind explore, just know what you are getting into b4 you jump in the deep end, and do your research on this site and erowid.com
|
DadeMurphy
H4x0r

Registered: 01/29/03 
Posts: 908
Last seen: 13 years, 10 months
|
Re: LD50 of THC [Re: shneck]
#5438400 - 03/24/06 01:41 PM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
There's no contradiction in what I said. I was merely stating that there is this general trend that as organism size goes up, LD50 goes down (in terms of mg/kg). It is true for many drugs, I don't know if it is true for cannabinoids or not. I didn't mention anything about dosage route because I wasn't trying to make an argument one way or the other on cannabinoid LD50, just pointing this trend out.
-------------------- --------------------------------------------------
|
shneck
Stranger


Registered: 09/16/05
Posts: 222
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
|
The contradiction, in my view, is that you predict THC LD50 "basing on a trend" which "may not apply to THC". All words are your own.
As it turns out, this trend does not apply to THC indeed. Which makes your point both self contradictory and wrong.
Same would happen if you apply such logic, say, for psylocibin. That's why I believe it's a crooked one.
You use the fact that they all are DRUGS as a basis for such extrapolation. And completely forget that they belong to different types of chemicals and the mechanism of their action is quite different.
Sorry if I did not put it clear before.
Peace.
|
|