REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Aw man.... True story

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 27, 2006 06:53
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3003
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, October 20, 2006 11:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Before you check this out on Snopes, I aready did. It's TRUE.


-------------------

First, I'm going to tell you a little about my family and me. My name is Jeff. I am a Police Officer for a city which is known nationwide for it's crime rate. We have a lot of gangs and drugs. At one point, we were # 2 in the nation in homicides per capita. I also have a police K-9 named Thor. He was certified in drugs and general duty. He retired at 3 years old because he was shot in the line of duty. He lives with us now and I still train with him because he likes it. I always liked the fact that there was no way to bring drugs into my house. Thor wouldn't allow it. He would tell on you. The reason I say this is so you understand that I know about drugs.

I have taught in schools about drugs. My wife asks all our kids at least once a week if they used any drugs. Makes them promise they won't. I like building computers occasionally and started building a new one in February 2005. I also was working on some of my older computers. They were full of dust so on one of my trips to the computer store I bought a 3 pack of DUST OFF. Dust Off is a can of compressed air to blow dust off a computer. A few weeks later when I went to use one of them, they were all used. I talked to my kids and my two sons both said they had used them on their computer and messing around with them. I yelled at them for wasting the 10 dollars I paid for them.

On February 28, I went back to the computer store. They didn't have the 3 pack that I had bought on sale so I bought a single jumbo can of Dust Off. I went home and set it down beside my computer. On March 1st, I left for work at 10 PM. Just before midnight, my wife went down and kissed Kyle goodnight. At 5:30 am, the next morning Kathy went downstairs to wake Kyle up for school, before she left for work. He was propped up in bed with his legs crossed and his head leaning over. She called to him a few times to get up. He didn't move. He would sometimes tease her like this and pretend he fell back asleep. He was never easy to get up. She went in and shook his arm. He fell over. He was pale white and had the straw from the Dust Off can coming out of his mouth. He had the new can of Dust Off in his hands. Kyle was dead.

I am a police officer and I had never heard of this. My wife is a nurse and she had never heard of this. We later found out from the coroner, after the autopsy, that only the propellant from the can of Dust off was in his system. No other drugs. Kyle had died between midnight and 11 AM.

I found out that using Dust Off is being done mostly by kid’s ages 9 through 15. They even have a name for it. It's called dusting. A take off from the Dust Off name. It gives them a slight high for about 10 seconds. It makes them dizzy. A boy who lives down the street from us showed Kyle how to do this about a month before. Kyle showed his best friend. Told him it was cool and it couldn't hurt you. It's just compressed air. It can't hurt you. His best friend said no. Kyle was wrong. It's not just compressed air. It also contains a propellant called R2. It's a refrigerant like what is used in your refrigerator. It is a heavy gas. Heavier than air. When you inhale it, it fills your lungs and keeps the good air, with oxygen, out. That's why you feel dizzy, buzzed. It decreases the oxygen to your brain, to your heart. Kyle was right. It can't hurt you. IT KILLS YOU.

The horrible part about this is there is no warning. There is no level that kills you. It's not cumulative or an overdose; it can just go randomly, terribly wrong. Roll the dice and if your number comes up, you die. IT’S NOT AN OVERDOSE. It's Russian roulette. You don't die later. Or not feel good and say I've had too much. You usually die as you're breathing it in. If not, you die within 2 seconds of finishing "the hit." That's why the straw was still in Kyle's mouth when he died. Why his eyes were still open. The experts want to call this huffing. The kids don't believe its huffing. As adults, we tend to lump many things together. But it doesn't fit here. And that's why it’s more accepted. There is no chemical reaction, no strong odor. It doesn't follow the huffing signals. Kyle complained a few days before he died of his tongue hurting. It probably did. The propellant causes frostbite.

If I had only known. It's easy to say hey, it's my life and I'll do what I want. But it isn't. Others are always affected. This has forever changed our family's life. I have a hole in my heart and soul that can never be fixed. The pain is so immense I can't describe it. There's nowhere to run from it. I cry all the time and I don't ever cry. I do what I'm supposed to do but I don't really care. My kids are messed up. One won't talk about it. The other will only sleep in our room at night. And my wife, I can't even describe how bad she is taking this. I thought we were safe because of Thor. I thought we were safe because we knew about drugs and talked to our kids about them.

After Kyle died, another story came out. A probation Officer went to the school system next to ours to speak with a student. While there, he found a student using Dust Off in the bathroom. This student told him about another student who also had some in his locker. This is a rather affluent school system. They will tell you they don't have a drug problem there. They don't even have a Dare or Plus program there. So rather than tell everyone about this "new" way of getting high they found, they hid it. The probation officer told the media after Kyle's death and they, the school, then admitted to it. I know that if they would have told the media and I had heard, it wouldn't have been in my house.

We need to get this out of our homes and school computer labs. Using Dust Off isn't new and some "professionals" do know about. It just isn't talked about much, except by the kids. They all seem to know about it.

April 2nd was 1 month since Kyle died. April 5th would have been his 15th birthday. And every weekday I catch myself sitting on the living room couch at 2:30 in the afternoon and waiting to see him get off the bus. I know Kyle is in heaven but I can’t help but wonder if I died and went to Hell.



---------------------------------
Please forward to those with teenage kids.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 1:24 PM

ODDNESS2HER


I...have no words. I can't begin to imagine the awfulness. I'm so, so sorry for you and your family.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:07 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Not me... but it was forwarded to me. As usual I check this stuff out on Snopes. Turns out that the police officer lives in Cleveland.

I know about "huffing". But the thing that makes this so insidious is that Dust Off has no smell. I'm sure it seems benign and perfectly safe to the kids who try it.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:33 PM

ANTIMASON


that is a pretty aweful story... and for a 10 sec high at that. it actually kind of makes me mad at the establishment, for outlawing marijuana, when in reality its potential for harm is less than many of your common household products

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 2:56 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Helium has the same effect and risk. Some people breathe it from helium-filled balloons either to get a slight buzz or for the funny way you sound, like Donald duck.

Other people breathe nitrous oxide from whipped cream cans.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 20, 2006 6:23 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


some places in Canada, many times with the native population the same thing happens with lysol and other cleaning products...


I think the key to the problem is education, not so much keeping the products out of the home. It would be impossible to keep all dangerous products away, better the risks are known.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 21, 2006 4:40 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Here's a link to the Snopes article, which has quite a bit more info on this problem. A sad thing all round.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/dustoff.asp

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 21, 2006 8:26 AM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD


Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Helium has the same effect and risk.


Yeah, that must be why they use it as a component in breathing gas for deep-sea divers. . .

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 22, 2006 12:50 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:
Originally posted by MohrStoutbeard:
Yeah, that must be why they use it as a component in breathing gas for deep-sea divers. . .
Pure Oxygen is poisnous, yet we need it to survive.

Inhaling Helium can be fatal because you're replacing Oxygen in the lungs with helium, so it is fatal for the exact same reasons this dust off accellerant is.

It's safe for deep sea divers because it's used as a COMPONENT of the gas mixture trimix and heliox because Helium leaves the body quicker than Nitrogen allowing shorter decompression stops.

Oxygen is still present in the lungs when breathing these gas mixtures, Helium is merely a replacement for Nitrogen as the inert breathing gas, because as I indicated breathing pure Oxygen for any great length of time is dangerous.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 22, 2006 3:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Mohr- Chem 101- "Air" is a combination of gases: nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%), water (0.5-2.5%) argon (0.8%), carbon dioxide (350-500 ppm), and trace amounts of methane, carbon monoxide etc.

It is the oxygen in the air that we need. BTW, it is generally not "lack of oxygen" that triggers breathing reflex but buildup of carbon dioxide. The average % oxygen in exhaled air is about 16%.

If you breathe ANY zero-oxygen gas you'll die, whether the gas is freon, helium, hydrogen, nitrogen or argon. But pure oxygen is almost as bad: it "burns" the lungs. Pure oxygen under pressure does the same thing throughout the body, causing symptoms up to and including seizures and death. ("oxygen poisoning")

There are several effects from "huffing" depending on the inhaled gas. The first is anoxia: the propellant displaces oxygen and causes a momentary feeling of syncope. In addition, the propellant nitrous oxide ("laughing gas") induces a sense of euphoria, while solvents containing toluene cocentrate in the same reward//pleasure areas of the brain as cocaine. www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/2002/bnlpr041502.htm

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 22, 2006 9:55 AM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD


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."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 22, 2006 10:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 7:42 PM

DREAMTROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 23, 2006 11:24 PM

SIMONWHO


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:11 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 3:29 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 4:48 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


Damn DT,

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:41 AM

DREAMTROVE


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?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:44 AM

DREAMTROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:49 AM

ROCKETJOCK


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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:23 AM

DREAMTROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:44 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:58 AM

STORYMARK


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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:09 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 26, 2006 5:27 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


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!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:01 AM

DREAMTROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:06 AM

DREAMTROVE


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 27, 2006 4:18 AM

CITIZEN


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 27, 2006 6:53 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER


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 prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood"

The Libertarian party has a clear position on this issue and it ain't yours. You have a right to your opinion brother, but you believing something without evidence is no more valid than a Christian fundie believing the earth is 4000 years old.

Facts and opinions are two very different things and despite your postition in this thread, I think you are capable of distinguishing between the two.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL