Aw man.... True story

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Friday, October 27, 2006 16:53
VIEWED: 4023
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

MOHRSTOUTBEARD

Sunday, October 22, 2006 7:55 PM

Fair enough. I'm aware that helium is not used alone as a breathing gas, but I was under the impression that the risks were not exactly the same as huffing Dust-Off (or other abused products) unless it was done continuously over the course of a couple of minutes, as opposed to a quick inhalation from a balloon.

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

RUE

Sunday, October 22, 2006 8:00 PM

There is another reason why they settled on helium to replace nitrogen, and it is density at pressure. It takes too much work to move say, argon around - in and out of lungs. At a certain point the work of breathing uses up more energy than can be liberated with the oxygen you breathe. Non-compressible, low density helium saves on the work of breathing at pressure.

In fact, they are now using heliox mix to aerobically exercise heart-failure patients at sea level. By saving on the work of breathing, they are able to achieve more intense heart exercise.

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:42 AM

My sister has a birth defect caused by a chemical paintstripper my mother was using. It wasn't widely known yet that household products might endanger the unborn. Now the product contains a label saying this will happen. But I don't get why such products are sold. I have a little tiny vacuum for the dust in my computer. I don't need a chemical solvent. I don't think households should have chemical solvents, in general.

But the other problem here is a lack of drug education. "Drugs are bad" is not drug education, and neither is "this is an egg in a frying pan." "This is how your brain and body works" would be a start, followed by "this is what drugs do to that process" followed by some statistics.

A close personal friend of mine smoked up some really good reefer one night, and was so high he thought he was jesus. He walked out his back porch and off the edge of an 80 foot cliff.

Marijuana is not harmless. It destroys the brain bit by bit, much like chronic alcohol abuse. It's more damaging to your mental capacity than cocaine or heroine and seven times more carcinigenic than tobacco. It's the most dangerous drug on the streets today, and virtually everyone below a certain age is taking it.

It's a big elephant in the room. Every debate we have, no one mentions that we are a stoner nation with no will to stop evil cabals from taking over own govt. and no will to learn, educate ourselves, and no mental capacity or focus to compete with the workers in India or Korea, or, for that matter, Ipod City.

Here's the sad truth: If the workers at Ipod City were the only competition to the American factory worker, and the pay was exactly the same., Apple would hire the people at Ipod City, and so would I, and so should you. America is in far far worse shape than it realizes. It's just about dead. It' homeless and stoned on the curb itching for its next hit, read to kill its neighbors just to get high a last time.

Sorry for the righteous rant, but I think it's been shown in past threads that I'm the most reactionarily anti-drug person here, so I get to rant :)

Anyone have a solution?

Here's my extreme one: Zero tolerance. If you're convicted of a drug-related crime, you're instantly not a citizen. You can apply for citizenship just like anyone else. If you're convicted of another drug-related crime, your application is thrown out.

SIMONWHO

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:24 AM

Why not just shoot everyone in your local bar, save time and money?

I know more people who've had bad experiences with cars than bad experiences with drugs. And no, cars are not essential, any more than going to work is essential. It's a choice, just like any other.

I don't do drugs. I've tried them, been less than impressed with the results (in the sense that ecstasy didn't give me a mood lift, nor did cocaine fill me with excitement) and will now probably go the rest of my life without sampling them again. But I respect the right of the next person to alter his mind state... providing he faces up to the consequences of that action.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:11 PM

I’m not sure what the toxicity of He is in relation to this particularly propellant, but from what I gather, neither of them are particularly toxic in doses need to kill, since it is not the chemical that is killing but the lack of oxygen, although I would expect that He is not the more toxic. The human body has a very high tolerance to water, obviously, yet you’ll drown to death in it in seconds after it fills your lungs. Anything that displaces enough oxygen in your lungs to decrease the concentration below necessary levels is deadly.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 1:29 PM

DT- I'm a chemist and, strangely, tend not to use "chemicals" in my house. I like to stick with water, biodegradeable detergents, and baking soda. Occassionally I'll use bleach or ammonia. But as far as chemicla paint strippers- when you're delaing with leaded paint, it is far safer to use a chemical paint stripper.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 2:48 PM

Damn DT,

For a Libertarian, you seem to have some pretty strong opinions about what I should in my body...

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:41 PM

Finn,

Good point. There could probably be a simple valve designed to prevent continuous feed for long enough to kill someone.

Fellow Traveller,

The first step is to admit that you have a problem. I'm serious, a druggie society is a dead society. I also don't support your right to an abortion, or a nuclear bomb. I'm funny that way. It's almost as if I've taken an anti-death position. Like I don't support death's right to kill. Maybe we could have another debate like the evolution one where we argue for the pro-suicide case against the anti-suicide one, on an equal footing.

My society would like to continue living and to actually function, and compete. If you're society is stoned to the gills, we will have no trouble replacing you in this way. My plan isn't that radical, it's quite similar to what is already law on most of the planet, in fact, it's mild by comparison. I think it's totally libertarian. As libertarian as it can be without being suicidal. Or sociocidal

Edit:

What, are you surprised? You seem shocked. I don't think I ever made any bones about being essentially a right-winger. But on a more serious level, there's a difference between a libertarian society and anarchy, and that difference is that your right to swing you arms ends where my nose begins. The drug trade bops a lot of noses.

But more than that, a society is a contract, between its citizens and their govt. which says "I will be a useful productive member of society and what I do will benefit this society." And if you don't agree to this contract, then there's no reason the society should want to keep you.

Drug use is a serious problem, and it prevents members from being optimal members of society. Lets say I have New York, and there are ten million druggie burnouts lounging around who refuse to pick up and make something of themselves. I would want my society to succeed and achieve. There are easily ten million drug-free decicated intelligent hard working people in india who want to come to new york. If someone proposes a swap, exactle how many seconds do you think it is going to take me to accept?

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:44 PM

Quote:
When you're delaing with leaded paint, it is far safer to use a chemical paint stripper.

Chemist or no, this doesn't make a lot of chemical sense to me. That lead is going to be a lot less dangerous from a point of subcutaneous poisoning when it is in its solid form than when it is a solute in an acid.

ROCKETJOCK

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:49 PM

I think people are missing the true lesson to be learned from this sad, tragic situation, which is this:

No matter how much effort you put in to try and eliminate drugs, thrill-seekers will find a way!

Here we have a near-perfect sealing of an environment against inebriants of all sorts; yet, despite this, a method was found. And, precisely because the interdiction of comparatively safe inebriants was so successful, the child turned to a method that was not just dangerous, but fatal.

(Please note, I say only comparatively safe -- I'm not claiming marijuana, or cocaine, or even the metabolic poison ethyl alcohol are harmless, merely that they are less harmful than accidental death through oxygen deprivation.)

Could this tragedy have been avoided if we had outlawed Dust-off? No. Some other method would have been found. Outlawing old-fashioned plastic cement and replacing it with harmless citrus-based substitutes didn't eliminate "huffing" -- thrill seekers just turned to other sources for their fumes.

"Better education" isn't a cure-all either. For every kid who thinks "geez, that sounds too dangerous to try", there's going to be one who thinks "Wow, you can get high off of Dust-Off? I gotta try that!"

My point here is that damage control is not always best served by perfection or zero tolerance -- if this child had been able to sneak a joint or a pint bottle into his house, he might or might not have eventually developed a drug dependentcy, but he probably would not have ended up on a slab so soon.

"Just think of it as evolution in action." -- Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE