the genetic influence of drugs

[spok]

going about my business, i've noticed some trends with regards to particular genetic lineages which have an existing tolerance or ability to metabolise particular varieties of substances which are in line with their direct genetic ancestral behaviors

most people can obtain a high tolerance through conditioning or frequent use, but i'm talking about people whom just appeared to have a natural tolerance relative to people around them. your friends for example might have conditioned themselves with a bit of a tolerance to mdma or alcohol by consuming it every weekend, but you a first timer or infrequent user are still not as significantly or equally affected by an equal portion of the same substance...you can consume as much or maybe even more with the same or maybe even less of an affect

just wondering if some people out there who might have a naturally occurring high tolerance to recreational chemicals of particular varieties might also know if their parents consumed similar substances to any extent in their day?

 

[Jakeperson]

Codeine doesn't effect me and I needed around 40mg oxy on my first time to get an alright high.

I weighed 57kg at the time.

Seemed to have a lower tolerance to MDMA to other first timers, however its quite high now. Doesn't seem to drop much even with abstinence. Maybe its the pills haha.

No one in my family has used drugs as far as I know. 99.98% sure that they haven't.

 

[Crankinit]

I don't think there's any mechanism by which you can inherit a tolerance to a substance from an ancestor, your genes aren't malleable. That's like suggesting you can darken your childs skin color by spending more time tanning.

 

[chemi]

Sorry mate, I can't comment on my parents, dad never touched a thing and mum had a toke once.

As far as myself goes, I have low tolerance to cannabis, tobacco and alcohol, but high tolerance to MDxx/LSD/shrooms.

Would be interested to know about hereditary tolerance though.

I don't think there's any mechanism by which you can inherit a tolerance to a substance from an ancestor, your genes aren't malleable. That's like suggesting you can darken your childs skin color by spending more time tanning.

Technically, you can why do you think African babies are dark skinned?

 

[Crankinit]

Technically, you can

I'm intrigued Able to elaborate?

 

[chemi]

Exposure to a particular environment, whether that environment be UV ray filled or cannabis filled, will condition humans over time. Africans have evolved and changed to develop a resistance to the harsh UV rays, because their environment has been filled with UV rays. That way, when their babies are born, they already have that resistance.

It is a different story with a consumable I'll agree, but surely this same logic can be applied to tolerance to drugs?

 

[Crankinit]

That's entirely different though. Africans develop a darker skin due to natural selection favoring those who tend towards darker skin colors in a hot, sunny environment.

If you were exposing a society to a drug in a manner which favors those with a higher tolerance to its effects over those with a weaker tolerance (ie, heroin, the argument could be made that someone less sensitive to it is less likely to die in an overdose*) , over a long period of time, then yeah hypothetically they would develop a natural tolerance to it (and this has happened many times with different dietary patterns, where an indigenous population have a far higher tolerance to something within their local diet, then foreigners come over, eat the same food, and become sick). But there's no mechanism by which such a change can take place directly due to exposure in a single generation.

*though that could easily be rebutted with the argument that your risk of overdose has nothing to do with your tolerance, since a user with a higher tolerance would be injecting larger doses anyway and an overdose has less to do with the dose in itself than the dose relative to the tolerance, but the point stands.

 

[chemi]

Yes, actually you're right, I remember watching something on TV explaining that a long time ago.

Well I guess that's the answer. Some races may have higher or lower tolerance to a particular chemical (like asians have a lower tolerance to ethanol), but as you say it is unlikely to change in one, or even 5-10 generations.

 

[footscrazy]

There is some evidence to suggest that behaviours etc learnt through an individuals lifetime can be passed on - not by changing dna but by changing how different genes are expressed - turning them 'on' or 'off' - epigenetics.

 

[Sameria]

Let's also not forget enzyme levels can be passed on through genes. This would explain natural tolerances but not tolerance developed through years of use.

I know a certain family who can drink 3-4 times others can.

 

[static_mind]

Iv wondered this myself. Not trying in a raceist way but it seems that whites can handle their alcohol better then an abo. Maybe thousands of years of exposure compared to a couple hundred has an effect, although their are many other factors that have a hand in play. The only ancedotal evidence I have is I grew up with an abo in the city who was exposed to a white culture but when he has a drink iv never seen anyone change so dramaticly.

 

[Sustanon]

Im kinda lucky, i dont abuse one substance for long periods of time so i get pretty much wasted everytime even on low doses. Even when i did MDMA 3 times a week for a year or 2 i got munted off 1-2 pills. I think it comes down to ur genes, tolerance, drug purity, weight and metabolism. An acid trip for me lasts for only 5-6 hours max and my mates are all flying for 8-10 hours on a same dose. Your body mite metabolize it better/worse than others.

 

[spok]

That's entirely different though. Africans develop a darker skin due to natural selection favoring those who tend towards darker skin colors in a hot, sunny environment.

are you saying africans are not dark skinned on account of their exposure to the sun?

was else did it, magic?

when you refer to "natural selection" are you talking about reproduction, predation, disease etc?

how do any of those directly influence the volume of pigment in the skin? do you know why pigment emerges in the skin?

it doesn't change the fact that the volume of pigment in their skin is a DIRECT consequence of the suns ultra violet rays

all of these natural selection factors do allow particular traits to proliferate but they don't magically create it, the environment is the only thing that can do it. honestly that seems so obvious i'm surprised i would have to say it?

I don't think there's any mechanism by which you can inherit a tolerance to a substance from an ancestor, your genes aren't malleable. That's like suggesting you can darken your childs skin color by spending more time tanning.

there is no 'significant' change over a single generation but marginal changes dictated by environment over the evolution of the species are what ultimately shape it

There is some evidence to suggest that behaviours etc learnt through an individuals lifetime can be passed on - not by changing dna but by changing how different genes are expressed - turning them 'on' or 'off' - epigenetics.

you mean instinct?

by changing the way genes are expressed are you not "changing" the dna?

 

[spok]

crankinit and footscrazy,

are you creationists?

 

[footscrazy]

I'm about as far away from being a creationist as you can get
No, epigenetics does not change the dna sequence - however the genes that atre already in that sequence may be expressed differently. So yes I [probably worded it wrong - the DNA is changed in a sense, however the DNA sequence is immutable once it has been established in an individual.

Crankinit wasn't saying it's not due to natural selection - he's saying that what happens in an individual's lifetime is not passed on. To use the darker skin case, natural selection works by selecting those who are born with a darker skin tone, enhancing their survival rates. They then pass on their dark skin genes and they become more prevalent. But, an individual with fair skin does not develop darker skin genes due to being exposed to the sun, even if it would be more beneficial to them, and they also wont pass on darker skin genes to any children simply as a result of being in a sunny environment. To put it another way - genes don't know what your environment is. They can't change due to environmental pressures, in an individual. Random mutations will produce children that are lighter skinned than normal, and darker skinned than normal. If they are born into an environment with high UV and the darker skin is more beneficial, they will survive while the paler skinned kid will not. That's how a population would get darker.

 

[drug_mentor]

I think genetics do influence initial tolerance to drugs to an extent but probably not through ancestors prior use of a substance. What I mean is that there is obviously a reason that someone has a higher or lower starting tolerance to a drug and you can't always chalk it up to weight or metabolism.

These factors that influence their initial tolerance have been likely caused by their genetics in some way but its probably not because your mum or dad used to do heaps of cocaine back in the day that you may need more than all your mates.

I have a little brother and we react to drugs very differently. He drinks a lot less frequently than I do but seems to have a higher tolerance to alcohol than me, he weighs more but this was true even when we were similar weight. He has a VERY low tolerance to all amphetamines and to an extent psychedelics, although I have more experience than him I can honestly say I have never in my life been as fucked from pills or speed as he gets off what I consider a small amount. I have always thought it was odd we would react to drugs so differently.

Maybe its environmental influences on you that change the factors which decide how you will react to a drug? Who knows really.

 

[Crankinit]

I wonder how much of it is connected to an individuals psychological/neurological makeup? As bluelight is so fond of saying, 'everyones brain chemistry is different,' and any drug user can account for the fact that different chemicals affect people in different ways. Some people need 5 or 6 pills to get munted for their first go (well, everyone does these days but I digress) while some are reaching for the lazers after one. Some people find weed a serene, laid back experience, while some are thrown into psychadelica, or full blown anxiety. Some people itch like crazy on opiates, while some throw up, while some just feel tired. etc etc. I'd love to see some detailed research into what causes the different reactions people have to different drugs. How much of it is environmental, how much is genetic, how much is psychosomatic, and so forth.

 

[spok]

So yes I [probably worded it wrong - the DNA is changed in a sense

that's a bit of an understatement...i'd say genes "expressing themselves" by morphing a motorbike sized, wolf like, land bound animal into an airliner sized, fish like, aquatic animal over hundreds of millions of years is quite a significant "change"

But, an individual with fair skin does not develop darker skin genes due to being exposed to the sun

To put it another way - genes don't know what your environment is

i want you to do a little experiment, go and lay in the sun for ten minutes each day for the next seven days and make observations of your own condition

If they are born into an environment with high UV and the darker skin is more beneficial, they will survive while the paler skinned kid will not

what makes you think there were ever pale skinned kids in africa?

do you know why europeans are not dark?

 

[Crankinit]

Obviously exposure to the sun makes an individuals skin darker (some individuals at least damn my european ancesty!), but only to an extent. No amount of sitting in the sun is going to turn some ghost white irish guy into morgan freeman. We have a potential to darken to a certain extent, which is determined by genetics. In an environment with heavy UV exposure, natural selection favors those who have a greater potential to darken with exposure to the sun, and so those genes are passed on, leading to, well, black people. Though I suppose it's actually vice versa, since according to current theory humanity originated in the continent now known as Africa.

 

[spok]

No amount of sitting in the sun is going to turn some ghost white irish guy into morgan freeman

what can i say to this......no shit

how do you think whales came about?

did the land mammals they used to be enter the water and natural selection magically allowed their genes to "express themselves" and change into a whale?

or did the progressive influence of the aquatic environment condition them and shape them into whales a little bit more with every passing generation?

just like the sun has with dark humans (whom were probably always dark regardless)

europeans aren't white because "natural selection" wiped out all the dark ones! natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with human skin tone