[Noisebridge-discuss] Use of Nitrous Oxide in the space on Sunday night

[Martin Bogomolni]

Zephyr :

Just a correction.  People like referencing that bit, but they keep
forgetting about 381b .. it's just one paragraph before, and it's VERY
clear on the subject:

 CA penal code:

381b.  Any person who possesses nitrous oxide or any substance
containing nitrous oxide, with the intent to breathe, inhale, or
ingest for the purpose of causing a condition of intoxication,
elation, euphoria, dizziness, stupefaction, or dulling of the senses
or for the purpose of, in any manner, changing, distorting, or
disturbing the audio, visual, or mental processes, or who knowingly
and with the intent to do so is under the influence of nitrous oxide
or any material containing nitrous oxide is guilty of a misdemeanor.
This section shall not apply to any person who is under the
influence of nitrous oxide or any material containing nitrous oxide
pursuant to an administration for the purpose of medical, surgical,
or dental care by a person duly licensed to administer such an agent.

NO2, with intent to inhale, if you are not in the middle of a
Dentist's appointment, is a misdemeanor.   Cut and dry.

-M

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM, zephyr q <zv at offblast.org> wrote:
> As far as allegations of no hacking, I'm afraid that's just not true:
> We implemented the Rho and Pi steps of the brand new SHA3 standard
> algorithm "Keccak" inside the RAR archiver's internal virtual machine
> (Similar to x86) while under the influence. Check it out --
> https://github.com/zv/SHA3ImplementedInsideofaRARfile/blob/master/keccak.rs
>
> It's worth noting that the materials used to consume laughing gas were
> actually already available at Noisebridge, and in fact the Whippit
> administration canister is plastered with Noisebridge logos from
> previous misadventures. This is not a new phenomenon.
>
> I would also like to see the legal opinion on this, as this is what I
> turned up http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/381c.html . Which
> indicates to me that, actually, in fact, the recreational NO2 usage is
> entirely legal in the State of California, in fact, I believe it would
> be "more legal" than the alcohol at the space. I would like to hear
> about it from someone who is actually a lawyer.
>
> For the record, nobody was harmed and as far as I know, absolutely
> nothing remotely resembling an altercation occurred as a result of
> this. (This is a straw man, but food for thought anyway -- can we say
> the same of alcohol?)
>
> That considered, if it made you feel uncomfortable Zach, it made you
> feel uncomfortable. If there's something you do not want to see in the
> space, I think it's good to have a discussion about it.  I hope in the
> future should something like this happen, you should consider *who*
> you are bringing it up with. There's obviously quite a bit of
> variability between any two given members in terms of their respect
> for others. I heard about it second hand, but the person you brought
> it up with is an (internationally) renowned misanthrope. I would like
> to think we could have come to a compromise if you'd asked me. I hope
> you know that in the future that, at least I will take what you have
> to say seriously.
>
> Keep hacking!
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss