Aw man.... True story

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

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

DREAMTROVE

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:23 PM

Rocket Jock,

Good point, except, six of one, half a dozen of the other. The pothead kid would be consuming food and resources while being a member of the larger slag-heap of life. True, the pot-headedness is more cureable than dead-ness.

I think the ultimate solution to this is probably to design drugs for the thrill seekers to seek which are more relatively harmless than mary jane and crack.

But also, there was not only a failure to educate the child, but a failure of society to properly reward good behavior.

If the drug world offered popularity, fun, music, games, money and a chance at a girlfiend, and in contrast, the straight life offered dull boring job, unpopularity, stress, yelling, discipline, and a vasectomy, which more or less is the decision as kids see it today, then the choice seemed obvious.

Christians are clever this way, they integrate music games and singles situations into their jesus world, but our mainstream society has really become an anathema to teens.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:44 PM

Quote:
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.

Except when you remove the paint by sanding, which creates very fine particles that are easily inhaled into the very absorptive high-surface areas of the lungs, or inhaled and swallowed where the lead is freed up by stomach acid and absorbed. Trust me on this one, it is far easier to protect the skin than the lungs. There is another paint removal process- themal stripping, which creates even finer aerosols.

That being said, there are chemical paint removers and then there are chemical removers. The old-fashioned kind was based on methylene chloride with thickener. It does a great job and is still used in commercial furniture stripping. But there are newer kinds available based on orange oil or ethyl lactate (based on lactic acid, which is derived from lactose, which is milk sugar) that are not as volatile or dangerous as methylene chloride.

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

STORYMARK

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:58 PM

Scary, scary stuff. This email made the rounds at my school yesterday. Yet another seemingly innocent killer to keep an eye out for.

Two days ago, I would have thought nothing of seeing a student with a can of air. Strange days...

As a side issue, this statement struck me as misinformed (in regards to marijuanna):

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's ...seven times more carcinigenic than tobacco.

That has pretty much been disproven by government studies. Granted, those studies havn't gotten much press, as they weren't the results the Gov. was after.

And yeah, this comes from a pro-pot website, but they do have all the sources cited, and they seem to be fairly reputable:

--MARIJUANA USE HAS NO EFFECT ON MORTALITY: A massive study of California HMO members funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) found marijuana use caused no significant increase in mortality. Tobacco use was associated with increased risk of death. Sidney, S et al. Marijuana Use and Mortality. American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 87 No. 4, April 1997. p. 585-590. Sept. 2002.

--OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART I): Federal researchers implanted several types of cancer, including leukemia and lung cancers, in mice, then treated them with cannabinoids (unique, active components found in marijuana). THC and other cannabinoids shrank tumors and increased the mice’s lifespans. Munson, AE et al. Antineoplastic Activity of Cannabinoids. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sept. 1975. p. 597-602.

--OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER, (PART II): In a 1994 study the government tried to suppress, federal researchers gave mice and rats massive doses of THC, looking for cancers or other signs of toxicity. The rodents given THC lived longer and had fewer cancers, "in a dose-dependent manner" (i.e. the more THC they got, the fewer tumors). NTP Technical Report On The Toxicology And Carcinogenesis Studies Of 1-Trans- Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol, CAS No. 1972-08-3, In F344/N Rats And B6C3F(1) Mice, Gavage Studies. See also, "Medical Marijuana: Unpublished Federal Study Found THC-Treated Rats Lived Longer, Had Less Cancer," AIDS Treatment News no. 263, Jan. 17, 1997.

--OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART III): Researchers at the Kaiser-Permanente HMO, funded by NIDA, followed 65,000 patients for nearly a decade, comparing cancer rates among non-smokers, tobacco smokers, and marijuana smokers. Tobacco smokers had massively higher rates of lung cancer and other cancers. Marijuana smokers who didn’t also use tobacco had no increase in risk of tobacco-related cancers or of cancer risk overall. In fact their rates of lung and most other cancers were slightly lower than non-smokers, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. Sidney, S. et al. Marijuana Use and Cancer Incidence (California, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. Vol. 8. Sept. 1997, p. 722-728.

--OOPS, MARIJUANA MAY PREVENT CANCER (PART IV): Donald Tashkin, a UCLA researcher whose work is funded by NIDA, did a case-control study comparing 1,200 patients with lung, head and neck cancers to a matched group with no cancer. Even the heaviest marijuana smokers had no increased risk of cancer, and had somewhat lower cancer risk than non-smokers (tobacco smokers had a 20-fold increased lung cancer risk). Tashkin D. Marijuana Use and Lung Cancer: Results of a Case-Control Study. American Thoracic Society International Conference. May 23, 2006.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

FELLOWTRAVELER

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The first step is to admit that you have a problem.

Nah brother, it's not the first step for me. I work. I pay taxes. My workplace performance evaluations have always been outstanding. I contribute to society just as equally as do others. You are making a broad generalization based on your personal opinions, not facts.

Quote:
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.

And this is your plan?

Quote:
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.

Sounds kinda' radical to me. Could you please cite something to back up your assertion this isn't radical and in line with the laws of most of the planet? It is at odds with just about everything I have read on the subject.

Quote:
Marijuana is... more damaging to your mental capacity than cocaine or heroine. It's the most dangerous drug on the streets today...

Again, could you please back this up with some kind of objective, peer reviewed information?

These claims are even beyond those of NIDA and the DEA, two groups that are anything but objective and have a vested interest in disseminating anti-drug propaganda.

Quote:
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.

I had an Aunt who died when her airplane crashed. Should we ban commercial aviation? Like the original post in this thread, your friend's story is a tragic tale and I am sorry that he met with such an end, but it is anecdotal at best.

Some people die when they eat peanut butter. Some die because of excessive alcohol consumption. Some people die on the operating table as an unfortunate result of properly administered anesthetics. Shit happens. We don't base law on isolated incidents.

Quote:
...but a failure of society to properly reward good behavior.

This is the definition of social engineering. In the "Evil" thread you say it's horrible, now here you say we need more of it. How quickly things lead back to moral relativism.

Quote:
Drug use is a serious problem, and it prevents members from being optimal members of society.

As does obesity, would you propose laws to eliminate that as well? Round up all the fatties and throw them into forced workout camps. Or maybe the government should plan all our meals for us to regulate our caloric intake.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:27 PM

Huh, no sourced information here yet, either.

I guess it sucks to have one of those lowly, worthless, brain dead druggies point out misinformation that a simple google search can refute...

Can't say I blame you, I've been training for this argument since my freshman year in college. Probably best you back down...

And Hero, don't rat me out!

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:01 PM

Sig

I hadn't thought of sanding. I assumed you were using a metal scraper in either case.

Story,

I became anti-mj when I was doing research for a paper for biochem class. My chosen paper topic was "mj is harmless, or even helpful" which was the side I was on, and set out to prove it, and failed resoundingly.

Every time I read one of those pro-studies, I could read inbetween the lines the scientists were saying "dude, pass me the bong." It was like listening to an addict rant. Lines like "there are natural pot receptors in your head."

By contrast the anti- arguments were incredibly scientific and well anchored. "the molecular structure of the active canabinoids, thc, are analoques which bind to receptors, disabling them.", etc.

I had to confess, after reading through about 50 studies, that this was like the global warming debate, one side was making stuff up to defend its habit, and the other side knew every back road barkwards and forwards.

As for the anti-cancer, sure, boost those GABA levels and you can up the body physical stability, no question about it. But there are an endless number of ways to do that. Ever wonder why the govt banned GHB? That's a much more curious.

The simple fact is that MJ and its extracts come up for FDA testing all the time, and they always fail miserably. Even discounting the radical side effects altogether, they consistantly fail to outperform the placebo. When it succeeds, you'll see it appear. Medical mj is just a cover argument for recreation mj, and people should just be more honest about it. There's tons of substitutes for mj from either a pharm or an herbal medicine point of view.

My own suspicion is that the candidates for public office have been cutting deals with street lords for some time, and the street lords don't like legal drugs. Mj is a big money maker. And under the table money can easily surpass the campagin finance limits.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:06 PM

FT,

I'm not arguing with you. I think this issue is settled, like evolution, very very well settled. It doesn't hinge on your ability to make an argument for it.

I'm generally in favor of open availability of all herbs. MJ abuse is a serious problem, and its given us zombie nation. I've known many addicts over many years, along side their non-addict counterparts. The contrast is night and day. Its obvious to everyone.

Or, obvious to everyone who isn't an addict.

I wasn't born a conservative. This is one of about a hundred arguments which won me over to the right side. I come from a lefty family.

CITIZEN

Friday, October 27, 2006 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm not arguing with you. I think this issue is settled, like evolution, very very well settled. It doesn't hinge on your ability to make an argument for it.

It has, and you are wrong. That's all I'm going to say and if you reply I'm just going to repeat myself.

Go read up on the subject, some actual sources rather than anti-drug propeganda, if you're interested in the truth you'll soon come around to our side.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm not arguing with you.

Okay. Then why do you then proceed to making an argument? I do, however, really like how you don't address a single point or question that I made above. That's one helluva' ostrich impression you got going there.

Quote:
I think this issue is settled, like evolution, very very well settled. It doesn't hinge on your ability to make an argument for it.

While it is, obviously, settled for you, it should be clear that other people have different opinions and that science has reached different conclusions as well.

Quote:
I'm generally in favor of open availability of all herbs.

Unless you don't like them, in which case your opinion in more valuable than those of anyone else, or science.

Quote:
MJ abuse is a serious problem, and its given us zombie nation.

Really? Ever go to a Phish show? Tye-die and hair, as far as the eye can see. Those dancing hippies don't look a lot like Romero cast-aways to me. They're very animated people, for zombies...

Quote:
I've known many addicts over many years, along side their non-addict counterparts. The contrast is night and day. Its obvious to everyone.

Or, obvious to everyone who isn't an addict.

Aaahhh, I'm too drugged up to be objective. Now, I get it. Name calling is desperate DT and I love the smell of desperation in the morning... Smells like, victory.

from:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24336

Quote:
There are two forms of winning in a debate:

1. making the other person give in to your position. I'm not sure why an assault on geezer, who seems truly moderate to me, would merit any serious victory for liberals. i also don't see him caving,

2. make the casual observer side with you. I'm pretty neutral to the debates i see going on, and tend to fall down on one side or the other with even regularity.

There is a third form of winning a debate. It is being right and having objective evidence to support your or refute your opponent's position. You have not provided any evidence, objective or not.

Quote:
Marijuana is... more damaging to your mental capacity than cocaine or heroine... It's the most dangerous drug on the streets today

I asked, politely and without name calling I might add, for you to source your claims. You have not. I can do this as well:

If you take Ritalin, you will see little Christina Aguilera spider monsters. This is a known fact to everyone who isn't on Ritalin. I shall not source this information, because my word is unassailable. I researched this in college. It is fact because I say it is.

I have three articles from peer reviewed medical journals waiting to go. They are from "The Lancet", "JAMA", and the "NEJM" and these articles invalidate your claims on Marijuana. Should I cite them first? Or does the responsibility first fall to you to support your postition? Most would argue the latter.

Quote:
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.

You know, I hate to point out contradictory statements posted in the same thread, but isn't this exactly what your doing.

Marijuana is bad. That's your whole argument? How about you come up with some of those statistics you claim are needed?

Finally,

Quote:
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.

From the "Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee":

http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml

"Step 2. End Prohibition

Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohi

PREV PAGE 1 2 3