jcd11235

I think if prohibition ended (not just legalization of pot) I think crack would virtually disappear, since high quality powder cocaine would be readily available at a reasonable price. I also think that coke availability would also significantly reduce meth usage. X gets a bad rap and is not as dangerous as many believe, assuming it is unadulterated. Don't get me wrong, it's not safe, but the risk can be reduced to a manageable level, much like skydiving. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And guns. Don't forget guns. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I presume it's marijuana, since there appears to be a pot leaf on the wall. But it's not me in the picture. Just a random thumbnail off the interweb. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Maybe we could declare a war on a color next. How about a War On Pink. Wait...one of my favorite things is pink. How about a War On Purple? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why would anyone's safety be at risk? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I didn't say we should. I said the scientific evidence suggests that fears of people driving under the influence of cannabis may well be unfounded. It would be great of no one ever ate while they drove. Or drove after taking cold medicine. Or talked on the phone while behind the wheel. Or searched for that pack of Marlboro and their lighter. Or put on makeup. Or stirred their coffee. Or tuned the radio. Or any one (or more) of a number of things that all reduce our ability to drive at our maximum ability. However, these things are here to stay. I don't think arbitrarily prohibiting one activity while driving, while leaving other activities legal, will make our roads any safer. Furthermore, I have never seen a stoned (cannabis) driver get road rage, which often happens to some sober drivers. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You make a valid point. I do not, however, believe that justifies prohibition. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

There's nothing like pouring a little gas on the yule log fire! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Next step, talk her into getting her riggers ticket. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That sounds much more plausible. Part of responsible drug use is using drugs in a suitable setting. One of the benefits of legalizing drugs is that it becomes okay to teach people about minimizing risk and using drugs responsibly instead of learning everything by trial and error. I'm sure I was one. I rarely drink these days myself. I'll raise a pint of Guinness and toast absent friends now and again. Plus I'll get myself pretty drunk once every year or two just so I remember how miserable a hangover feels. Other than those pretty rare occasions, I've managed to give up alcohol. Much of what makes drug addictions so bad is that the drugs cost so freakin' much. That's because they are illegal. The supply is artificially limited. Legalize, and the cost plummets. When the cost plummets, the lives of addicts no longer revolve around finding enough cash to support their habit. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

He was answering my question such that a simpleton as myself could understand. I'm sure he would have calculated much more precisely if he had realized you were going to peer review his work. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Hey! That's my theory. Don't go attributing it to him, cause it's probably wrong. Hey, delta_T = (g.h)/Cp assuming all the gravitational energy converted to heat. So if h = 200m, g=9.81 (call it 10) m/s^2 and Cp = 450J/kg Gives about 4 degrees C temperature rise. Joule actually did something like this with waterfalls while on his honeymoon. Note that water does not boil at the bottom of a waterfall, even one of the height of Angel Falls. Thanks. That's interesting about Joule. I'm sure Mrs. Joule saw how romantic that gesture really was. I hadn't thought about water temperature under a water fall. That makes sense. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Thanks.

I hope that you are a troll and don't really believe that. You've yet to not have a point debunked. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Hey! That's my theory. Don't go attributing it to him, cause it's probably wrong. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K92OVFeGgIE Clearly the humor was lost on someone. edit to add: and I don't think it was SpeedRacer or Billvon. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Soon I discovered that this rock thing was true. Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil. Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet. All of a sudden I found myself in love with the world, So there was only one thing I could do... Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It was actually my question: Stated differently, how much of the structural steel's kinetic energy would be converted to heat after falling about an eighth mile to impact, and by by how much could this heat raise the temperature of the steel? My suspicion is that plain old gravity was a significant contributor to the heat of the rubble. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Trick question, right? Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If a piece of the structural steel fell straight down into the rubble from a height of about 1/8 mile (about halfway up either tower), and impacted in a vertical orientation without rotation, how much energy could be converted to heat, and by how much could the temperature of that steel be raised. I'm looking for an order of magnitude calculation, not six significant figures. Thanks.

I remember reading in a philosophy text 2-3 years ago where a "mystic" (I'll use that term, as I don't remember the specific religion) wrote an essay describing a drug free mystical experience. A drug user wrote an essay about a drug induced hallucinatory experience. Readers of both essays were unable to determine which was which. Half of the people were incorrect. Chemicals as entheogens is not a new concept at all. It is certainly not a crock or a lazy short cut to anything. Most who believe it is, have never taken a milligram or two of LSD, turned off the lights, and sat in a chair to be introspective for several hours. Many don't have the strength to be that introspective. They are too afraid of their own demons. And that's just acid. Other substances have the potential to take you much further. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I think you might find these studies interesting. The results of this study indicate clearly that alcohol and marijuana are distinctly different drugs. The effects produced on the performance measures were qualitatively and quantitatively different. In addition, the differences in the nature of the drug-induced subjective intoxication and the self-reported changes in mood effects such as anxiety and alertness, strongly suggested different drug actions. . . . Evidence is presented which suggests that under the influence of alcohol, subjects engage in a "speed-accuracy trade-off". They are prepared to make a hasty response to a question rather than to spend more time to ensure a correct answer. This effect could be related to a risk-taking behaviour. The results with marijuana on the other hand suggested a slower and more careful approach to the problem, though as with alcohol, an increased error rate in responses was recorded. . . . The results strongly suggest that the performance deficits and mood changes produced by alcohol are of a greater magnitude than those produced by marijuana. Source Abstract: This article concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. It presents the major results of one laboratory and three on-road driving studies. The latter were conducted on a closed section of a primary highway, on a highway in the presence of other traffic and in urban traffic, respectively. This program of research has shown that marijuana produces only a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight into their performance and will compensate where they can (e.g., by increasing distance between vehicles or increasing effort). As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appeared relatively small in the tests employed in this program. . . . The results of the studies corroborate those of previous driving simulator and closed-course tests by indicating that THC in inhaled doses up to 300†µg/kg has significant, yet not dramatic, dose-related impairing effects on driving performance. Standard deviation of lateral position in the road-tracking test was the most sensitive measure for revealing THC's adverse effects. This is because road-tracking is primarily controlled by an automatic information processing system which operates outside of conscious control. The process is relatively impervious to environmental changes, but highly vulnerable to internal factors that retard the flow of information through the system. THC and many other drugs are among these factors. When they interfere with the process that restricts SDLP, there is little the afflicted individual can do by way of compensation to restore the situation. Car-following and, to a greater extent, city driving performance depend more on controlled information processing and are therefore more accessible for compensatory mechanisms that reduce the decrements or abolish them entirely. THC's effects after doses up to 300†µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at BACs of 0.08†g% and were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs (Robbe 1994). Yet THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the former's users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence. Source A single glass of wine will impair your driving more than smoking a joint. . . . At present there is no accurate test that can reveal whether a driver has taken cannabis before driving, and developing one will not be easy. But even when this problem is cracked, another will remain - where to set the safety threshold for smoking cannabis. Advocates of zero tolerance say there should be penalties for drivers caught with any amount of recently smoked cannabis in their body. The new research suggests that would only be credible if governments also adopted zero tolerance on drink driving. . . . The volunteers were given either enough alcohol to raise alcohol levels in the blood to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres - about 60 per cent of Britain's legal limit of 80 mg/100 ml - or a specially prepared marijuana joint designed to deliver the same high typically experienced by smokers. In the study, cannabis significantly affected only one criterion, known as tracking ability. Volunteers found it more difficult to hold a constant speed and follow the middle of the road accurately while driving around a figure-of-eight loop. The TRL researchers point out in their draft report that this test requires drivers to hold their concentration for a short time, a task which is particularly badly affected by the intoxicating effects of cannabis. However, volunteers drinking the equivalent of a glass of wine fared worse than those who had smoked a joint. . . . But the study also found that drivers on cannabis tended to be aware of their intoxicated state, and drove more cautiously to compensate. Indeed, doped-up volunteers often rated themselves as being more impaired than police surgeons brought in to evaluate their sobriety. Source Here is another interesting study on cannabis and driving. I'm not saying people should drive under the influence, but I think the general alarm at the possibility of it happening might be largely unfounded. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I agree most any source should be taken with a grain of salt. AFAIK, there has never been any deaths directly related to cannabis. Even Donald Tashkin, MD (UCLA), who has spent his life trying to prove how dangerous smoking marijuana is for the lungs has been unable to link marijuana with emphysema or respiratory cancer. One of his more recent studies actually shows a slight negative correlation between marijuana smokers and lung cancer. (No additional studies have been done to see if there is a slight protective effect from smoking pot, or whether the results are a statistical anomaly.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm gonna have to call bullshit on the acid claim. The lowest LD50 dose I was able to find is 300 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. That LD50 dose was for a rabbit. After that was 1800 micrograms for a wild bird. The next lowest was 16 milligrams per kg of body weight, for a rat and a guinea pig. A typical heavy recreational dose for a person is about 250 micrograms. That works out to less than 4 micrograms per kilogram for a 150 lb person, which is well under any LD50 dosage. Source That your friend died of an accident that LSD played an indirect role in might be believable. That happens all the time with alcohol, too. If you are basing your conclusions on the experience of one short decade, you have a pretty limited sample compared to some many of us. I can respect your decision to avoid being around "that shit." I feel the same way about drunks, so I avoid bars. I've never met a druggie that was more annoying than a drunk, at least due to their respective inebriating substances. Like Billvon, alcohol is the hardest drug I've ever used, and I have used A LOT of different drugs. I've admittedly slowed WAY down in my old age, but I'm not about to disregard years of first hand experience that is almost uniformly contrary to anti-drug propaganda. I'm not trying to convince you that drugs are good. However, most anyone with experience with both will tell you that illegal drugs aren't any worse (some would say not as bad) as alcohol. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I knew it wouldn't be long before someone brought up Mr. Herer. IMO, this book did a disservice to those seeking legalization. While it has A LOT of good information in it, it also has a lot of over statements. The result is an inability for the reader to separate the facts from the bullshit, since they are mixed together. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!