# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## [Politics] Weed and Things

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

97 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:15 pm

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

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:17 pm

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.
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

- Quote

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:20 pm

> RobbyPants wrote: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.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

sabs
  Duke
  Posts: 2347
  Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
  Location: Delaware

###

- Quote

Post by sabs » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:24 pm

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.
Top

PoliteNewb
  Duke
  Posts: 1053
  Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
  Location: Alaska
  Contact:
  Contact PoliteNewb
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by PoliteNewb » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:26 pm

> CatharzGodfoot wrote:

> > RobbyPants wrote: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 am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:34 pm

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.)
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

- Quote

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:47 pm

> PoliteNewb wrote:

> > CatharzGodfoot wrote:

> > > RobbyPants wrote: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.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

sabs
  Duke
  Posts: 2347
  Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 8:01 pm
  Location: Delaware

###

- Quote

Post by sabs » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:53 pm

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.
Top

CatharzGodfoot
  King
  Posts: 5668
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: North Carolina

###

- Quote

Post by CatharzGodfoot » Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:47 pm

> sabs wrote: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.
The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from stealing bread, begging and sleeping under bridges.
-Anatole France
Mount Flamethrower on rear
Drive in reverse
Win Game.
-Josh Kablack
Top

Calibron
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 617
  Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:38 am

###

- Quote

Post by Calibron » Fri Mar 25, 2011 8:55 pm

> sabs wrote: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?
Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:47 am

> sabs wrote: 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.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

###

- Quote

Post by Maj » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:52 am

> Catharz wrote: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.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

PoliteNewb
  Duke
  Posts: 1053
  Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:23 am
  Location: Alaska
  Contact:
  Contact PoliteNewb
  Website

###

- Quote

Post by PoliteNewb » Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:36 am

> CatharzGodfoot wrote: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.
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
--Shadzar
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Sat Mar 26, 2011 8:02 am

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
Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:06 am

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

This from a medical expert. Awesome.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

erik
  King
  Posts: 5847
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by erik » Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:30 am

> CatharzGodfoot wrote: 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!)
Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:47 pm

> FrankTrollman wrote: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?
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Mon Mar 28, 2011 2:40 pm

> RobbyPants wrote:

> > FrankTrollman wrote: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
Top

Koumei
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 13796
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: South Ausfailia

###

- Quote

Post by Koumei » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:35 am

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.

> Count Arioch the 28th wrote:There is NOTHING better than lesbians. Lesbians make everything better.

Top

ubernoob
  Duke
  Posts: 2444
  Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:30 am

###

- Quote

Post by ubernoob » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:06 am

> Koumei wrote: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.

> Wiki wrote: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.
Top

RobbyPants
  King
  Posts: 5201
  Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

###

- Quote

Post by RobbyPants » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:00 pm

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

The Vigilante
  Master
  Posts: 246
  Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:42 am

###

- Quote

Post by The Vigilante » Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:16 pm

> RobbyPants wrote: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.
Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no one - for I am the meanest motherfucker in the valley.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by tzor » Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:31 pm

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.
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:21 pm

> tzor wrote: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
Top

Doom
  Duke
  Posts: 1470
  Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:52 pm
  Location: Baton Rouge

###

- Quote

Post by Doom » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:55 pm

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)?

> Kaelik, to Tzor wrote: And you aren't shot in the face?

> Frank Trollman wrote:A government is also immortal ...On the plus side, once the United Kingdom is no longer united, the United States of America will be the oldest country in the world. USA!

Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

97 posts

- Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS