Or for that matter posting instructions on how to do it. The closing of the thread http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=82386
with the words of Chronos
got me wondering why the SDMB would not allow the post. Is it illegal? or is it illegal to post ways that one could get high using legally available items? Or is it a liability issue - sort of ‘don’t try this at home’ thing going on here?
You can get high off of beer. Want instructions? 
Probably just a common-sense continuation of a general policy which says: The world today, especially the US, is a litigious place. So prudent people/businesses/entities cover their collective asses. Why would the Reader be any different. If they are smart enough to run a kick-ass board such as this, and at little monetary profit to themselves, why would they run even the slightest risk of someone suing them, no matter how poorly the suit was founded?
Are there any laws that specifically ban the act of getting high, or is all drug law based on the substance involved? How quickly could something be banned, if it were discovered that it made people high?
I think they have to outlaw the scientific formula.
I read that on a report about cocaine. The formula for cocaine was made illegal so the “bad” guys invented crack and it was lawful to use crack (for a little while) and then they outlawed THAT formula aswell. I dont know about laws against getting “high” except for “Dont drive if your ability is impaired”
something like that
The Reader has never limited itself to censoring only the illegal; it also reserves the right to censor the stupid, the inane, the irritating, the obnoxious, and whatever happens to piss off the mods at any particular time.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is a privately owned and run forum – kind of a like a party at Uncle Cecil’s house. As such, Uncle Cecil’s Legion of Doom gets to decide what’s okay anc what’s not, regardless of legality.
And it’s a bad idea to try to get high off of peanuts; they get stuck up your nose.
I doubt being high is illegal. I doubt getting high is illegal. After all, people get high every day via such routes as jacking off, smiling at people, slaughtering Mr. Belvedere’s … anyway, getting high is common, as long as your definition of getting high includes non-chemical stimuli. Peanuts are legal in every jurisdiction I’ve ever been in. Peanuts are commonly sold in their shells. So peanut shells are legal. So if getting high is legal, and peanut shells are legal, getting high off of peanut shells is legal. BTW, good luck in finding out how. 
But just being legal does not make it a particularly good topic of discussion in a forum as public as this one. The SDMB is owned by the Chicago Reader, which is liable for lawsuits arising from the SDMB’s content. Lawsuits are expensive, even for the winner, and the SDMB is currently not making the Chicago Reader any money anyway, so the SDMB would be dead before the briefs hit the desks of the lawyers involved, so to speak. The Chicago Reader looks out for the interests of those who have invested in it, the owners and the employees. The mods and admins here look out for the interests of the board. The two are tied together in that if the Chicago Reader goes, the SDMB goes first. So Chronos, by protecting the Chicago Reader, is directly protecting the SDMB. And he’s doing it while taking college-level physics courses. I applaud him.
I have never looked, but maybe a package of peanuts says “it is unlawful to use this product in any manner inconsistant with its labeling.” That means there is some way to either get high, or make an explosive, out of it (or both!).
If not, samclem has the right idea. If some idiot kid went and got high off of peanuts and died, the parents of said kid would not blame the death on their own kid’s stupidity, but rather, would blame the Straight Dope and the people who own it (as they have the deep pockets). It’s sad but true.
If the substance in question is chemically related to an already scheduled substance, it is automatically illegal. This is thanks to the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act (of 1986). This law makes it illegal to “tinker” with the molecular structure of an illegal drug, if it results in a substance with similar pharmacological effects. In the 1980s there was a big problem with people making “speed”-type drugs that fell just outside the explicit listing of illegal drugs.
HUH? Oystaman I’d be real interested to see a cite for that. The “bad” guys invented Crack because it could be sold in single doses, and gave the user an intensely addictive high. It was an ideal drug that could be sold on the street. The fact that Cocaine had been put on DEA Schedule II in 1970 had nothing to do with it. Besides, Crack is merely freebase cocaine, so it would automatically be Schedule II as well. As far as I know there was never a time when Crack Cocaine was legal in the USA!
Oystaman…my apologies. I just glanced at your profile and noticed you were from Australia. I assumed you were from the US, being as Ameri-centric as I am. I’m sure that Australia has a different system for classifying illegal drugs, and it’s possible that Crack was legal there before a loophole was closed…