[Politics] Weed and Things

[RobbyPants]

Really? I always figured those toxic fumes were a secondary benefit.

[tzor]

Their purpose is "to burn a combustable." In this case they are no different from a oil or natural gas heater, only you want to see the flames. A proper modern fireplace (as opposed to the ones in the middle ages which was a firepit in the middle of the room with no chimney) is generally glass enclosed and all the waste products go up the chimney. With good fuel, they cause very little "toxic" fumes.

The CO2 detector isn't looking for toxic levels of CO2 but enough CO2 that indicates something may be on fire. A CO detector is looking for toxic levels, but wood burning stoves don't generate incomplete combustion as would be the case with fossil fuel burning heaters with little ourside air exaust ventiliation.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Really? I always figured those toxic fumes were a secondary benefit.

Well, heating isn't the reason: we have furnaces for that. And the pretty lights and sounds can be experienced in high definition on yule log TV. Ergo, it's the fumes.

[sabs]

I always thought that Weed should be treated like Alcohol/Tobacco hybrid.

You can smoke it in private, and in clubs/bars for that sort of thing.
1) You can't smoke it in public around other people.
2) You cannot drive while under the influence
3) You must be 18+

Anywhere its not okay to be drunk, it's not okay to be high.

ps: If you kill someone in an accident while drunk/high, say goodbye to your freedom. Murder 1 charges, 25-life.

[PoliteNewb]

Really? I always figured those toxic fumes were a secondary benefit.

Well, heating isn't the reason: we have furnaces for that. And the pretty lights and sounds can be experienced in high definition on yule log TV. Ergo, it's the fumes.

It's the nostalgia...we like the idea of hearkening back to primitive times before we had furnaces and high-def.

Also, it's hard to roast a marshmallow over your hot-air duct or television.

(although honestly, toxic fumes are a part of it...I like the smell of woodsmoke. But again...this is no more a reason to make them illegal than the bullshit reasons given for outlawing dope, or guns, or books FFS.)

[tzor]

Well if you want to get very technical. There are two major reasons. The fireplace provides an alternate fuel source. Most heating systems are not "zoned" so the fireplace provides heat to only a small portion of the house. More importantly, the source does not radiate heat uniformly in the space, so those who like it hot move closer to it and those who do not move farther away. The gas powered fireplaces at the Paneras I've been in are generally used for these purposes.

On the other hand, I've never quite understood what the gas powered fireplace that was literally above the bar (next to the ceiling) of the Dark Horse resturant in Riverhead is for. I guess they felt they needed a fireplace but didn't have any room. (Sorry, don't have a photo.)

[CatharzGodfoot]

Really? I always figured those toxic fumes were a secondary benefit.

Well, heating isn't the reason: we have furnaces for that. And the pretty lights and sounds can be experienced in high definition on yule log TV. Ergo, it's the fumes.

It's the nostalgia...we like the idea of hearkening back to primitive times before we had furnaces and high-def.

Also, it's hard to roast a marshmallow over your hot-air duct or television.

(although honestly, toxic fumes are a part of it...I like the smell of woodsmoke. But again...this is no more a reason to make them illegal than the bullshit reasons given for outlawing dope, or guns, or books FFS.)

I like wood fires as much as the next guy. In fact, I'm hoping to move into an apartment with a fireplace next year. However, I'm still aware of the danger they pose.

Imagine someone with less willpower than me. Imagine if they came from a less wealthy or educated background. Imagine if they were of a different ethnicity (maybe even an immigrant!), or didn't have the same religious and moral framework I have. Such a person might have far more fires than is safe; maybe even lighting one every night as a way to relax. Imagine the danger that their children would be exposed to!

Sometimes the government has to protect people from themselves. We'd probably all be better off (even 'light' users) if fireplaces were illegal.

[sabs]

That's a complete Strawman.

Maybe we should legalize Heroin, and Crack, and Blue Ice, and Meth.
Somethings SHOULD be illegal, in that they're so fucking bad for you that they can ruin your life with very little hope of recovery.

Weed may not be one of them, it's hard to say, though I've never had a lot of respect for the mental capacity of most of the dopeheads I knew.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Maybe we should legalize Heroin, and Crack, and Blue Ice, and Meth.

No. It will never be OK to keep things cool without the need for ice.

[Calibron]

Weed may not be one of them, it's hard to say, though I've never had a lot of respect for the mental capacity of most of the dopeheads I knew.

Do you have a lot of respect for the mental capacity for the average non-smoker you've know?

[Koumei]

Maybe we should legalize Heroin, and Crack, and Blue Ice, and Meth.
Somethings SHOULD be illegal, in that they're so fucking bad for you that they can ruin your life with very little hope of recovery.

Crack and meth tend to turn you into a problem for other people. Same with ice, though I thought that was just another name for meth? And that's the difference. Even if it turns out dope does turn people into morons, or give them cancer or whatever, I'm fine with letting them sit in their living room doing that. As long as we're letting people fuck themselves up with alcohol and tobacco, I really don't care if they fuck themselves up on weed.

But crack and meth are different because, having fucked themselves up on it, their next decision seems to always be "make it someone else's problem. At gun-point if you can."

And yes, under this set of guidelines, I would put heroin (and other opiates) in the same category as weed and tobacco: you can do as much damage to yourself as you like, it's not going to be someone else's problem. You don't turn into a dangerous lunatic.

though I've never had a lot of respect for the mental capacity of most of the dopeheads I knew.

Likewise, based on the evidence they elected to provide, though Bill Bailey likes the stuff and is practically a genius so take that how you will. And I also have little respect for the mental capacity of most heavy drinkers, football fans (the two are largely interchangeable) or people who drive four-wheel drives.

[Maj]

fireplaces should be illegal because their primary purpose is to produce toxic fumes.

You're crazy. Everyone knows that fireplaces are for seducing people, sitting next to with hot chocolate and marshmallows, and getting rid of evidence... Erm...burning the wrapping paper on Christmas morning. They may or may not also be good for emergency power outages as sources of heat and cooking.

[PoliteNewb]

Imagine someone with less willpower than me. Imagine if they came from a less wealthy or educated background. Imagine if they were of a different ethnicity (maybe even an immigrant!), or didn't have the same religious and moral framework I have. Such a person might have far more fires than is safe; maybe even lighting one every night as a way to relax. Imagine the danger that their children would be exposed to!

Sometimes the government has to protect people from themselves. We'd probably all be better off (even 'light' users) if fireplaces were illegal.

Oh, okay, now iseewhatyoudidthere. Ha ha.

Deadpan is a delicate art form, and better done in person than over the internet...you'd have been better off going with more overt satire from the get-go.

[Username17]

Blue ice is this:

It's a high specific heat chemical in a plastic container. You leave it in the freezer and then it takes a long time for it to heat up. This way you can ice an injury for a long period without melting anything, or throw one in a cooler and keep soda cold during a picnic. I'm pretty sure that stuff is going to be legal for a long long time.

People operating heavy machinery under the influence of most any drug is dangerous and needs to be regulated. Even mild stimulants like caffeine or nicotine are fairly easy to overdose on to the point that you are a jittery and unsafe driver.

The effects of marijuana on health are overall fairly mild. It does not increase cancer rates (despite including chemicals which when taken alone, do increase cancer rates, indicating that there may b tumor suppressants somewhere in dope smoke). The amount sane people smoke has much less effects on the lungs than normal cigarette exposure.

The effects of marijuana on intelligence and creativity are unclear and controversial. Mostly it seems to depend heavily on the parameters of the study. I suspect a lot of the studies liking increased creativity to increased marijuana use actually go the other way - with musically inclined people having a greater predilection for getting stoned. But I don't really know. I think a good deal of the studies showing Marijuana reducing intelligence go the other way too - with only stupid people thinking it's a good idea to be stoned all the time. But again, I don't really know.

All in all, my medical opinion is that people should only use marijuana sparingly and to take moderate amounts when they do. And to not drive a car while on it. Pretty much the same advice I give about alcohol. It's very much not like tobacco or methamphetamine, which I encourage everyone to take as little as possible of and to avoid entirely if possible. It's also not like mescaline or LSD, which I think people should just plain take more of.

-Username17

[Koumei]

It's also not like mescaline or LSD, which I think people should just plain take more of.

This from a medical expert. Awesome.

[erik]

Imagine someone with less willpower than me. Imagine if they came from a less wealthy or educated background. Imagine if they were of a different ethnicity (maybe even an immigrant!), or didn't have the same religious and moral framework I have. Such a person might have far more fires than is safe; maybe even lighting one every night as a way to relax. Imagine the danger that their children would be exposed to!

This actually reminds me of a little mini-story I recently heard on public radio's Marketplace regarding fatal fires in the U.S. Apparently the most common amount of deaths in fires is just 1 person. And the most common cause of such fires is via unattended cigarettes. So there are new cigarettes being made that quench if not attended/inhaled through.

A bit ridiculous since more people die each year just by using cigarettes as intended, no house fire necessary, but whateva.

(ah, yay, I found the brief transcript for the show... linked!)

[RobbyPants]

It's also not like mescaline or LSD, which I think people should just plain take more of.

Oh, really? Is this for your own entertainment (to watch other people), or is there some other reason I'm unaware of?

[Username17]

It's also not like mescaline or LSD, which I think people should just plain take more of.

Oh, really? Is this for your own entertainment (to watch other people), or is there some other reason I'm unaware of?

People are straight up going to get high. They like doing it, and no civilization has ever existed that has done without mind altering substances. If you ban alcohol, people will drink shoe polish or huff paint. So from a societal standpoint it is imperative that we find mind altering substances with relatively mild health effects. Alcohol itself isn't bad, as in moderate amounts it reduces risks of heart attack and stroke.

A number of hallucinogens have incredibly mild health effects. The lethal dose of LSD is unknown. As in, it's so high that you don't seem to be able to kill yourself with the stuff. Taken in moderate amounts it improves memory and detail oriented perception. Compared to the other things vying for social acceptability amongst the mind altering substances, that's pretty fucking awesome.

-Username17

[Koumei]

Wait, it improves the memory? How much is a moderate amount then, because fuck, with my memory, I should go and drink* that stuff by the gallon.

*Or however you take LSD, I don't actually know.

[ubernoob]

Wait, it improves the memory? How much is a moderate amount then, because fuck, with my memory, I should go and drink* that stuff by the gallon.

*Or however you take LSD, I don't actually know.

LSD has a pretty fucking low threshold dose. A typical dose to have a trip would be measured in drops of the liquid form.

A single dose of LSD may be between 100 and 500 micrograms—an amount roughly equal to one-tenth the mass of a grain of sand. Threshold effects can be felt with as little as 25 micrograms of LSD.[7][14] Dosages of LSD are measured in micrograms (µg), or millionths of a gram. By comparison, dosages of most drugs, both recreational and medicinal, are measured in milligrams (mg), or thousandths of a gram. For example, an active dose of mescaline, roughly 0.2 to 0.5g, has effects comparable to 100 µg or less of LSD.[4]

Typical doses in the 1960s ranged from 200 to 1000 µg while street samples of the 1970s contained 30 to 300 µg. By the 1980s, the amount had reduced to between 100 and 125 µg, lowering more in the 1990s to the 20–80 µg range,[15] and even more in the 2000s.[16] [17]

Those are micrograms they are measuring in.

[RobbyPants]

The only way I've ever heard about was "stamps" soaked in the stuff.

[The Vigilante]

The only way I've ever heard about was "stamps" soaked in the stuff.

Easier to sell this way, but you can find bulbs or vials of the stuff, which they would then use to soak the stamps.

[tzor]

Well, you get the most interesting things from conservative twitter feeds: Alcohol vs. Marijuana: Probably the best graphical case for legalization I've seen so far. Also with the other points covered, check out the "What's the ratio of effective to fatal dose" graphic.

[Username17]

Well, you get the most interesting things from conservative twitter feeds: Alcohol vs. Marijuana: Probably the best graphical case for legalization I've seen so far. Also with the other points covered, check out the "What's the ratio of effective to fatal dose" graphic.

There are some heavy inaccuracies in that graphic. I don't know how you would kill yourself with a hundred milligrams of LSD. You can take several grams at once and all that happens is that you have a really weird couple of days. LSD's bar should seriously be hundreds or thousands of times higher even than it already is.

-Username17

[Doom]

I'm curious and too lazy to click around...is there a lethal doze to marijuana (and, if so, how would you even take it)?