ESR - User: sarac

<< Comment #1 @ 13:59 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac

http://www.youtube.com/v/3HLzmH9VB6A

Edited by sarac at 14:00 UTC, 2 May 2009

<< Comment #2 @ 14:05 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led

watching it right now, me loves weed

<< Comment #3 @ 14:27 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair

"provided what this documentary is saying is true"

I think everyone who has witnessed someone else smoking weed for a couple of years, will testify that it slowly destroys you, like most drugs.

<< Comment #4 @ 14:35 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #3

So that's what's killing Steve Jobs?

<< Comment #5 @ 14:42 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #3

It's entirely their fault for using the drug as an escape mechanism, just like morons that play WoW 24/7.

<< Comment #6 @ 14:50 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

endi - Reply to #3

lol

11%

<< Comment #9 @ 16:55 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #3

yeah if you're dumb enough to become cronic and never leave the house

<< Comment #18 @ 20:17 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #3

I've smoked pretty regularly for about 15 years. I'm doing fine, thanks.

<< Comment #22 @ 20:28 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Liam - Reply to #18

You're really not helping.

29%

<< Comment #21 @ 20:27 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #3

Weed has a tendency to be smoked primarily by social rejects so this is a pretty common misconception. Correlation ain't the same as causation buddy.

<< Comment #24 @ 20:47 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #21

Correlation among which elements? I'm only speaking from personal experience. And regardless of a few 'social rejects', some of them my friends, the majority of them were rather decent people. And they started to speak slowly, think slowly etc. transforming into very smart plants.

Weed has a tendency to be smoked. if any at all. And yes, that seems to be enough. It is not the drug of the upper class that apparently has a tendency to consume cocaine for being more energetic and successful. That's a causality.

<< Comment #27 @ 22:06 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #24

Correlation amidst the case of weed users being "slow". The normal misconception is that people on the dole are typical weed users and people tend to think that they are on the dole because of weed, 'cept it might just be the other way around.

Here's a case from my life. I'm attending this nifty uni course where 5 of the top 10 scoring students are heavy weed users(I'm not one of those 5, I only smoke in vacation time). Now some of them might talk and walk slower than other people (again, this might just be correlation) but when it comes to problem solving in the areas of coding, uml, HCI,statistics and math they're as fast as they ever were.
And nah, only one of them do coke. Actually, the heavy coke users I know are all dropouts. But then again, those guys were idiots.

<< Comment #52 @ 07:37 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #27

Exactly.

To add to that, alcoholics are also slow, fumbling, unorganized etc. Does that mean all alcohol is bad?

<< Comment #56 @ 07:48 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #52

Yes, yes it is.

<< Comment #68 @ 11:35 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #27

You're not one of the 5 top scorers? Why not? Maybe because you misuse statistics to make your points in the class exams just like you do now. It is you who confuses correlation with causation in comparing 5 people's scores with their drug habits and drawing the final conclusion that weed does not slow you down, which it is. And it is clear to anyone except you and a few others. Your uni courses have become 'nifty', a word that denounces the courses and trivializes your efforts in it, maybe that is why you're not one of the top scorers because you prefer to 'just be there' sitting next to one of the top scorers.

And wow long have you been 'spying' on all 5 top scorers, so that you can safely say they are 'heavy weed users'? Are they having weed parties? With you? Are you living with them? Me thinks you make things up to prove a point that you consider important enough. Maybe you're the only heavy weed user in your entire class.

Edited by agardenchair at 11:39 UTC, 3 May 2009

9%

<< Comment #73 @ 12:26 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #68

Way to misread. I'm one one of the top10 who doesn't smoke every week. I don't even drink alcohol each week or each month for that matter. That's my choice.

However, what I was stating was that some of the heavier weed users I know are better than 99.9% of the population at what they do. I can't see how they would be different/better with or without the weed. They probably wouldn't be as happy without the weed but that's another story.

The whole "weed makes you dumb" argument is fucking stupid since there is no evidence for it. It's an argument build upon fears and stereotypes - it's the same kind of argument people spew of when they say video games make you kill people.

Btw, I'm not saying cannabis is harmless by any means. According to studies there is a 5 times higher chance of daily weed user to become psychotic after a long period of smoking. That's the only risk that has been proven and that's just something users have to live with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)#Health_issues
Ofc there might be other risks but the severe lack of studies on the field makes it impossible for anyone to asses anything without being condemnatory.

<< Comment #85 @ 19:12 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #73

No, it's not making you dumb, but tmany already dumb people smoke it thinking it would give them enlightenment and creativity; adding another shade of comical drama to their lives. It only helps creative and intelligent people, i.e. people who are that way without intoxication.

<< Comment #91 @ 20:00 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #85

What? Who said anything about it making you smarter? I don't know anyone who thinks like that and I doubt it's a common belief. It gives people a good time and that's it.

<< Comment #102 @ 05:57 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #91

no, agardenchairs strawman argument was that since you don't believe his claim that it makes you stupider, you therefor must think that it makes you smarter.
But he's obviously just watched too many after school specials.

<< Comment #104 @ 06:02 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #102

You're an idiot. It doesn't do either since there is no proof for either. How about reading what I wrote for a change?

<< Comment #106 @ 06:06 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #104

lol
Re-read my post. You seem confused. Are you high?

<< Comment #108 @ 06:42 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #106

No, I just woke up. Still, you basically wrote what I wrote. Made me confused.

<< Comment #107 @ 06:18 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #104

... wow

<< Comment #112 @ 11:39 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #91

Would be a crummy drug if it gave you a bad time

<< Comment #114 @ 15:47 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #112

jep

<< Comment #83 @ 18:04 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #68

What's there to even argue about? You said so yourself that your opinion about marihuana comes from your "experience", hence it is just your opinion.

Here is the funny thing: I see the most intelligent people turn into complete morons when their opinion is not based on FACTS, but on FEARS. ..

<< Comment #86 @ 19:14 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #83

There's nothing to fear about weed. Take a close look at a pothead and on average it will be just like an empty bucket filled with more emptiness, but given one hearty stir and a bit of smoke.

<< Comment #88 @ 19:32 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #86

If there is nothing to fear, why don't you get an educated opinion? Oh right, because you already made up your mind because of the fear society has put into you regarding drugs. You only see what you want to see, anything else is left out. WHY don't you just look at facts, if you are the intellectual you think you are?

<< Comment #103 @ 05:58 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #88

well stated.

<< Comment #111 @ 11:36 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #88

I don't consider thinking a waste of time.

<< Comment #118 @ 17:57 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #111

Me neither. I don't really know what to make of this. You mean if you smoke weed you lose the ability to think? Or, you think about things you have no knowledge about and get amazing results so you don't need facts?

<< Comment #119 @ 18:41 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #118

It was just a response to your idea of my intellectual aspirations.

<< Comment #121 @ 21:27 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #119

*yawn* alright then

<< Comment #75 @ 14:27 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #27

Dude, smoking a bit of weed at uni or in your youth is not a suitable basis of compasrion to the impact of people who smoke the stuff.

Quite surprised you used the word correlation when you gave such a poor example which would not reflect the demographics who will get into it on a more serious basis.

If anyone weny to uni and did not dabble in some form of heaving drinking and some form of drugs I would be surprised.

<< Comment #79 @ 14:48 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #75

Firstly, my example wasn't meant to prove anything other than that people experience different things when observing people who use marijuana. There might be a correlation in your personal life but it doesn't mean shit.

Secondly, there is no evidence whatsoever for weed making people dumb. This is a fact. Have you experienced otherwise, good for you. However, your testimony is insufficient if you want to conclude anything.

Finally, even if weed was bad for your health, then why is it up to the government to decide what people shouldn't do as long as they don't hurt anyone but themselves? Grown ups should be able to think for themselves.

Edited by rolf at 14:48 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #140 @ 17:33 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (1503031074.static.seas-nve.dbnet.dk) - Reply to #79

So what you're saying is that everyone should be able to get a gun if they want it, because as long as they don't hurt any other people its ok. Same thing with WMD and heroine. Far fetched, yes, but this is what you say.

<< Comment #141 @ 18:39 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #140

Yes it is far fetched because a gun is designed to kill other people. Unless you tamper with other peoples food you can't really use drugs for harming others.
Of course, you could argue that the use of drugs implicitly affects the people around you. I got a relative whose an alcoholic and parties can be pretty shit because of him and, if i recall correctly, almost everyone(statistically) got an alcoholic relative. Nevertheless I think most problems with drugs can be prevented with proper education, taxation and medical help.

It all boils down to personal freedom supported by strong social responsibility and I think those 2 things are essential for happiness.

Btw, some countries with right to arms got surprisingly low gun murder rates. Norway for example. This shows that if a country's society got a strong foundation it can prevent disasters even if you legalize things designed to kill.

<< Comment #38 @ 03:00 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oneroomdisco - Reply to #3

and that's different from alcohol because...?

<< Comment #41 @ 04:39 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aaron - Reply to #38

.......

<< Comment #44 @ 05:36 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Liam - Reply to #38

Liam voted: totally dense, french

le called it.

<< Comment #69 @ 11:38 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #38

I don't think alcoholism makes you slower than before. Maybe you're thinking about getting drunk. Alcoholics don't get drunk easily. They may get violent or very cute but not slower per se.

<< Comment #70 @ 11:44 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

riske_of_h8 - Reply to #69

I always feel smarter when I drink!

4%

<< Comment #84 @ 18:11 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

bzzd - Reply to #3

i can safely say weed fucked with my short term memory, and it pisses me off to have started back then

and ye i was dumb enough to overdo it, years of smoking day in and day out

but well, you learn the hard way eh? ;P

<< Comment #89 @ 19:56 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #84

Some study concluded that short-term memory function is not lessened permanently but temporarily by smoking pot, and full function is regained after some years of quitting.

It does not damage the brain like alcohol does, but it influences brain development, that's why adolescents shouldn't smoke pot on a regular basis.

<< Comment #92 @ 20:10 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

bzzd - Reply to #89

well there's hope for me then although i quit a few years back AND my memory is shit still.

but yea i started too early too, think with like 14 or so ... shit sucks when you're from the ghetto:P

<< Comment #7 @ 14:52 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac

Wow - no relationship found between drug testing policy and drug use. That's interesting.

<< Comment #8 @ 16:09 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Ryan2015

Its not that bad

But overusing anything is generally not good for you >.>

<< Comment #10 @ 18:34 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

DamianLillard

provided what this documentary is saying is true, I am baffled that cannabis is still outlawed everywhile - while smoke, alkohol, caffeine, pain pills, all of which are more deadly than cannabis, aren't.

Yeah it's quite a shock looking at all the decisions where government listened to the experts instead of pulling something out of their ass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyystXOfDqo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37-zCyI6rmk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZNeZUROVM0&feature=related

<< Comment #11 @ 18:56 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio '

If you look at the problems with alcohol its pretty clear cannabis should stay banned because that is exactly what would happen, it would get over used and abused and often puts you in touch with people into the drug culture.

I don't really think society needs any more excuses to get stupid and my expereince with people who smoke weed are complete losers.

They end up using it more and more and unlike booze, it has a habbit of being an anti social drug, so I can see millions locked in their room doing it. I can spot a stoner a mile off, after a few years they have a certain slowness about them.

I'm off drugs, I seen too many people fucked up by it and it all starts with Cannabis.

Edited by Jamerio at 20:14 UTC, 2 May 2009

<< Comment #13 @ 19:20 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #11

Consider that some of these problems actually originate in it being criminalized?

Anyway I don't care about people wanting to get high, that's their business, just like with alcohol and tobacco. But things to note about cannabis:

* it can be made into paper (no more tree chopping)
* it has many medicinal uses
* it's easy to grow
* it doesn't make you violent like alcohol
* it doesn't give you cancer

I can't for the life of me see why this should be banned, while tobacco and alcohol is fine..

<< Comment #16 @ 20:00 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Furore - Reply to #13

smoking a joint is about 10 times more carcinogenic than a cigarette

<< Comment #19 @ 20:18 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #16

watch the movie or check your facts

<< Comment #71 @ 12:00 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Furore - Reply to #19

Ok, I may be wrong about it being 10 times more carginogenic, but what still stands is that it's significantly worse for your pulmonary health than smoking cigarettes. I accept the fact at the moment no definitive link between lung cancer and cannabis smoking has been found, though some still think one remains to be discovered (see below). However, I do think it undermines the benefit of this point if it is much MORE physically harmful to you in other ways.

A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.
~~http://www.lunguk.org/downloads/A_Smoking_Gun.pdf~~
Just checked that link and it's duff, so here's another one http://www.lunguk.org/media-and-campaigning/m...nnabis.htm
EDIT: Here is the original http://www.lunguk.org/Resources/British%20Lun...ng_Gun.pdf

Bit relevant to cancer:
"Research linking cannabis smoking to the development
of respiratory cancer exists although
there have also been conflicting findings. Not
only does the tar in a cannabis cigarette contain
many of the same known carcinogens as tobacco
smoke but the concentrations of these are up to
50% higher in the smoke of a cannabis cigarette.
It also deposits four times as much tar on the respiratory
tract as an unfiltered cigarette of the
same wieght. Smokers of cannabis and tobacco
have shown a greater increase in cellular abnormalities
indicating a cumulative effect of smoking
both."
Page 8 gives more detail and indicates how complicated a disease process cancer is.

This study says up to 5 times as potent as cigarettes for airflow obstruction.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Smoking/6298

Wikipedia says this:
"A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[24] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In spite of this, recent studies have been unable to demonstrate a direct link between lung cancer and frequent direct inhalation of marijuana smoke. While many researchers have failed to find a correlation,[25][26] some researchers still conclude that marijuana smoke poses a higher risk of lung cancer than tobacco"

Edited by Furore at 12:15 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #168 @ 10:49 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

raithza - Reply to #71

who the fuck smokes 3 to 4 joints a day?

<< Comment #313 @ 22:02 UTC, 14 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #168

You'd be surprised.

<< Comment #314 @ 11:13 UTC, 16 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

shady - Reply to #71

this is due to the fact people smoke it like cigarettes. if you smoke the weed through a vaporizer (which I would really recommend!) you dont have any damage at all.
there have been many studies in the last few months (mainly from american universitys) which prove that cannabis hasnt anything to do with lung-damage, but it can also heal lung cancer! the same goes for Alzheimers! yea, laugh at me, but there is a study that proves so: http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/110806/a...marijuana/
and it could even help against swine flu

<< Comment #31 @ 00:27 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #16

I doubt that.

<< Comment #20 @ 20:27 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #13

That's the problem, Tobacco and Alcohol are not fine, they're just socially accpetable. Its pretty immature to use that level of logic.

The GVT are making it more and more difficult for people to smoke, and alcohol has gone way out of control.

For people saying but so and so does it, I feel badly for their 5 year old mentality as it sounds pretty junior school to me.

Trying to justify something from another wrong is a bad basis of comparison.

cannabis makes you slow, there are also some vey smart peope out there who link it as a catalyst to mental conditions and there are tons of parents who have witnessed their kids spiral out of control from it. Why take that risk when some people can and will become dependant on that spaced out state of mind.

Again, look at all your plus points?
You're comparing it to other forms of poison (as its often abused) without looking at it in its own merit. And it will do more harm that good.

So that is why it should be banned. You've not given any good points, you;'ve just made it look good compared to other bad stuff which you can do about anything.

Edited by Jamerio at 20:36 UTC, 2 May 2009

<< Comment #53 @ 07:39 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #20

I've given you plenty of good points.

And the things you put up as arguments, all come from the same government propaganda and widespread, false myths.

You're a victim in this, as are most other people. Just try and watch the movie.

<< Comment #170 @ 10:57 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

raithza - Reply to #20

Marijuana's plus point is that it makes people happy. Yes there are dangers and risks associated with it, but when used in moderation these are neglible. Wouldn't it be better to educate people about these risks and let them make their own decisions, rather than enforce whatever the government decides upon the people?

Lets take surfing as an arbitrary example. Surfing is a very addictive hobby, a few surfers i know literally get grumpy if they've gone a few days without. It's not massively expensive but it takes up time and money without producing anything. And look at the risks of surfing: drowning, sharks, whatever else - why shouldn't the government outlaw surfing?

<< Comment #235 @ 02:44 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #170

No to the first, yes to the second.

<< Comment #245 @ 07:59 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

raithza - Reply to #235

fascist.

<< Comment #25 @ 20:51 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #13

I don't think a ban of hemp seeds is in question here :-)

<< Comment #17 @ 20:06 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #11

The fact that you oppose this should be used as yet another main reason as to why it should be legalized.

5%

<< Comment #23 @ 20:31 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #17

Yeah you rebel guy. That will show me.

you do realise that one smart person is worth a million ordinary?

For all the pot heads out there comparing it to drink/smokes , not one of you has the brains to realise that you're comparing it to other vices that are already doing damage.

Here's a tip, you can do that for anything you low expectation having mutha fuckers. It does not make it right, it means you have a childs mentality, a bit like when you got into trouble as a kid and justified it by saying so and so did it.

Edited by Jamerio at 20:39 UTC, 2 May 2009

<< Comment #82 @ 17:40 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #23

The comparison with smoke/alcohol is mostly to show how stupid the system is. While you have dangerous legal substances and cannabis is banned.
I have never met an intelligent person that turned out stupid because of smoking weed. Don't you understand that the losers and are still going to be losers even without smoking? They will always find a way to escape.

I don't think you ever smoked weed to be talking so much about it in the first place, or even watched the documentary in question.

afterall isn't that the whole purpose of drugs to take you to a different place because you can't enjoy, relax and unwind in a conscious state?

Wrong. I relax, enjoy, unwind in a conscious state normally while I also smoke weed sometimes and enjoy it very much. From wikipedia:

Some effects may include an altered state of consciousness, euphoria, feelings of well-being, relaxation or stress reduction, lethargy, increased appreciation of humor, music or art, joviality, metacognition and introspection, enhanced recollection (episodic memory), increased sensuality, increased awareness of sensation, increased libido, creative or philosophical thinking, disruption of linear memory, paranoia, agitation or anxiety, and increased awareness of patterns and color.

But you wouldn't know any of that, since you only enjoy things in a conscious state.

<< Comment #26 @ 22:03 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #11

people who smoke weed are complete losers.

nice sweeping statement there. weed is an addictive drug if used excessively, just like a lot of things in life. if used moderately the experience is far more enjoyable without the bad side-effects.

<< Comment #35 @ 00:43 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #26

I don't mean everyone, but most people I have ever encountered who smoke weed beyond the casual college years are complete wasters.

<< Comment #36 @ 02:16 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #35

i know a 50 yr old cambridge university lecturer who smokes recreationally... for example. you cant just lump people together

<< Comment #61 @ 08:57 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #36

Carl Sagan and his wife smoked a spliff every day. Real loser types.

<< Comment #139 @ 17:28 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

serak - Reply to #35

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J10w3FuCwfQ crude but true :o

<< Comment #29 @ 23:23 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tbone ' - Reply to #11

I will admit that you are beginning to look like not a complete idiot, but someone completely lacking any real life interactions.

Firstly, I hate weed, and I think anyone smoking it day to day is a moron.

HOWEVER.

It's my body, and I should be able to do what I want with it.

<< Comment #34 @ 00:41 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #29

You're the one lacking substance and interaction, afterall isn't that the whole purpose of drugs to take you to a different place because you can't enjoy, relax and unwind in a conscious state?

<< Comment #42 @ 04:57 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tbone ' - Reply to #34

Doesn't matter, it's my body and I can do what I want with it.

<< Comment #43 @ 05:21 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #34

You have no idea, I'm afraid :(. I wouldn't say that there is a purpose behind using a drug, is there a purpose behind drinking? Or do you do it because you enjoy it. Or eating, unless you are hungry.

People do drugs for a slew of reasons, some people because it expands their horizons, others because it makes them more competent people (just think of all the people you know who take medication, all of them are taking drugs.) I would doubt rather highly that when people consider doing a drug, they are thinking of what purpose it might fulfill for them, they just want to do it, and good on them. Experiementation comes with a window of oppourtunity that if you don't exploit you never will.

It all comes down to choice, and of course your upbringing will affect your perceptions, so will your experiences. One annoying fact about people on the outside of the world of drugs is that they will not, and cannot have an informed opinion. Just because the majority of people you have encounter have been dropkicks adds absolutley no worth to your argument. I could probably match, if not beat, the ammount of drug-fucked losers I've met. The difference for me is I have seen the other side, where the people doing the drugs are incredibly well-grounded, selfless individuals who are not 'better' people for doing drugs perhaps, but certainly express better qualities than the average person.

Whether or not something comes with a prescription pad doesn't change the fact of what it is. And whilst we live in a society that pollutes the public consciousness with drugs that increase (apparently) sexual aptitude, drugs that severly damage your health, and yet are heavily taxed by world governments. Not to mention an entire generation which has been reared on drugs for all manner of reasons. It is of the upmost hypocrisy that something that is all the more greater, and significantly less damaging (in some respects, not all) is outlawed for no good reason.

<< Comment #45 @ 05:37 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #43

Personally, I'm all for legalizing all drugs. The faster these idiots kill themselves, the better. The worst part about it right now is hearing the pathetic attempts at justification.

<< Comment #47 @ 06:29 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #45

Ahuh, please, do go on.

<< Comment #48 @ 06:33 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #47

That's all there is to it.

<< Comment #49 @ 06:56 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #48

Did you know that Carl Sagan was one of those idiots?

Weak as fuck argument, but it is still a fact that he was a recreational smoker.

Edited by mkeiy at 06:56 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #50 @ 06:58 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #49

Go on - ask me if I care.

<< Comment #51 @ 07:16 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #50

You caring or not doesn't even concern me. I am just stating that Carl Sagan, arguably one of the most influential intellectuals of our lifetime was as you referred to him 'an idiot' for smoking pot.

You might argue that you weren't making a sweeping statement, you might not. What is clear however is that you can't just lump everyone into categories without some form of signifying element to differentiate them.

Otherwise everyone on the internet could be considered to be like you, which would be a horrible turn of events :*(.

<< Comment #55 @ 07:46 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #51

See how pathetic your justification is? This one guy did this and managed to turn out okay, so it's clearly fine! You're trying to use the actions of others to justify your own.

Really, if you didn't feel guilty about what you were doing, you would ignore this kind of debate entirely. You know it's stupid in the back of your mind, you just want it to be socially acceptable so you can convince yourself that you're not a total retard.

This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. The only thing more pathetic than doing it is trying to justify it. Just shut up about it, smoke your brains out, and promptly walk into traffic. You won't be missed.

<< Comment #57 @ 07:52 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #55

No where did I say that smoking was a fine, or even good thing to do. What I said was that one person (among what I'm sure is many others) smoked pot and was an intellectual heavyweight.

And feel guilty? Haha why would I feel guilty for something I take pleasure in? And it is socially acceptable to smoke pot, unless you hadn't noticed. Or unless you allign yourself with those people in society who consider it a bad thing. In my life I know of more people, both family and not who find marijuana to be an acceptable substance.

It's amusing to me that you need to argue with me when I wasn't at all trying to argue with you. I was just pointing out to you something I didn't think you knew, so go ahead, be petty.

And when mind you do feelings of guilt motivate debate? Or vice-versa, you ignorant fool.

<< Comment #59 @ 08:11 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #57

What I said was that one person (among what I'm sure is many others) smoked pot and was an intellectual heavyweight.

Which has absolutely no relation to this.

Haha why would I feel guilty for something I take pleasure in?

You don't take pleasure in it - it creates pleasure artificially. You fail at understanding the elementary problem of your disorder.

And it is socially acceptable to smoke pot, unless you hadn't noticed.

I'm sure it is... at the local homeless shelter.

I was just pointing out to you something I didn't think you knew, so go ahead, be petty.

Ah, I see, you weren't arguing, you just wanted to offer a completely unrelated bit of info for no reason. I thank you for wasting my time on replying to me for no reason! While we're telling each other useless bits of info, allow me to inform you that Mountain Dew throwback is nowhere near as good as regular Mountain Dew. The jury is still out on Pepsi Throwback.

And when mind you do feelings of guilt motivate debate? Or vice-versa, you ignorant fool.

If you really were only doing drugs for "recreational" purposes, this wouldn't get to you so much. This holds too much power over you - so much so that you're seeking out documentaries like the above to justify your actions. You even describe the documentary opening your eyes to facts, which just shows how weak minded you are. I'm sure you believe everything you watch without doing the research. Did you know that a duck's quack doesn't echo?

<< Comment #60 @ 08:26 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #59

I lol'd

1%

<< Comment #62 @ 10:43 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #51

Typical druggy argument, use .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the population to justify the validity of the masses.

Its like the opposite of guilt by association.

<< Comment #90 @ 20:00 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #62

He didn't justify anything, he simply pointed out that generalization gets you nowhere by giving a counter-example.

Edited by crea* at 20:01 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #94 @ 20:34 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #62

You're such a fool

<< Comment #46 @ 06:14 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aquashark - Reply to #11

you're wrong about drug use, when it's not abuse.

you can fuck up your life with a lot of things if you're careless/stupid enough (food, WoW, legal drugs, extreme sports etc.).

in the end marijuana wastes a lot of public money on people who aren't a social perill and who're in the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. also they don't even put weight on the health system (like food/legal drug related diseases do).

personal freedom > fear of responsability

"The sad truth is you'd rather follow the school into the net
'cause swimming alone at sea is not the kind of freedom that you actually want."

<< Comment #65 @ 11:03 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #46

I'm not, you just don't understand the fundamental points of what you think is acceptable.

The reason why some use those vices is because they've been made available in the first place,

All you're suggesting is to legalise and make it easier for society to damage themselves further and pot would do this because you only need to look at the damage alcohol has done.

Whichever way you look at it, if drugs and alcohol were banished from the world tomorrow, it would be a better place.
You would get stoners and piss heads moaning, but that is only because they have become used to that state of mind.
The fundamnetal use of excessive/continual drugs and drink is unhappiness. (apart from very casual use few drinks with friends etc is fine).

Making it easier for people to plunge themselves into vices is not the right thing to do, its not your body, or your choice because the impacts of those choices affect me and modern society.

I can't go through town without some piss head asking me for change, or a seeing some druggy, who no doubt started dabbling in casual drink/drugs. You know why, cos every store sells cheap booze.

These people or a greater % of people could have gone down a different path had it been harder for them or less socially accpetable for them to do what they do.

Look at the smoking ban, it was the best thing to ever happen.
You had to force it and its working.
Nobody smokes out of hoice, you find me one smoker who is proud to smell of smoke, age faster, damage their health and the others around them. Everyone of them holds their habbit in contempt.

its a dirty stinking habbit that was only as popular as it was BECAUSE it was allowed to be put into society so easily.

Its the same with pot.

You need to accept that society on the whole is weak, most people are stupid and need protecting from themselves, that is why we have GVT's and police forces and that is why we having intellectualls who the world turns to for answers or confirmation on the big issues.

If more people were discouraged from being wasters then everything would be better. The guy who smokes dope all day would have turned into something better because he would have been forced too.

Freedom is important, but its also important to protect people from losing themselves. Even those who convince themselves that they should be able to take drugs.

Sadly if you smoke drugs, you are partly responsible for other peoples misery becaue somewhere along the line, there are people who are using that money, or the influence from those drugs to damage others.

Edited by Jamerio at 11:16 UTC, 3 May 2009

3%

<< Comment #58 @ 08:03 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz - Reply to #11

troll

<< Comment #63 @ 10:45 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #58

Druggy.

<< Comment #100 @ 01:22 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

oreozz - Reply to #63

dont do drugs

u dumb

<< Comment #209 @ 22:04 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Pushpabon - Reply to #11

Except that in countries such as Portugal and Netherlands (and soon Mexico) that have decriminalized use the situation is the opposite. Smaller percentage of peole use weed in those countries than in prohibition countries with harsh sentences such as usa.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

<< Comment #12 @ 19:12 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf

Welcome to common knowledge.

<< Comment #14 @ 19:37 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

toifel

concerning that stuff like herbals and salvia are still legal in most countries, banning weed is a joke.

<< Comment #15 @ 19:46 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #14

lol yeah salvia is insane.

<< Comment #28 @ 23:15 UTC, 2 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

toifel - Reply to #15

45x concentrated just fucks up everything... worst and most frightning experience I had so far, never again!

<< Comment #30 @ 00:19 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #28

How long did you trip for? A mate of mine said he felt like he had experienced 3 days worth of time during his, and having done acid myself several times I found that to sound rather exaggerated.

<< Comment #98 @ 00:25 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #30

unless it rewired his brain somehow, salvia won't make you trip hard for more than 5 min or so, and after 15-30 min you will feel completely normal

<< Comment #316 @ 06:32 UTC, 24 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

toifel - Reply to #98

true, but I was pretty damn confused and fucked up after that trip. nothing close to normal.

focus' descibtion below kinda nails it.

<< Comment #318 @ 17:56 UTC, 24 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #316

Hm true...I dunno when i did it i felt pretty much normal 30 min later and i tripped balls for 3-4 min ive never experienced anything that intense...yea it is a complete dissociative you forget everything and everyone around you

<< Comment #105 @ 06:04 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #30

acid is a much more lucid trip, even in it's extremes.
Salvia is more of a dissociative, like Ketamine, than it is a hallucinogen, like acid or mushrooms.

<< Comment #146 @ 04:43 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

endi - Reply to #105

liek acid n weed at highest but stronger or

<< Comment #147 @ 04:54 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #146

What?

<< Comment #172 @ 16:04 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #146

Liam is fat

<< Comment #317 @ 06:38 UTC, 24 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

toifel - Reply to #146

it's like a total loss of common sense... you dont know who you are, where you are and that you just smoked some crazy shit. when u're tripping on salvia, you might find urself in a completely different environment without even knowing what happened 5 seconds ago.
if u're not tripping, you'll probably laugh really insane for about 1-2 minutes without any reason... that can be funny.

<< Comment #306 @ 20:30 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ashr - Reply to #14

yea fucking datura grows all over the place here and nobody even knows what it does.

<< Comment #32 @ 00:29 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Lo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP0WCXC66nI

<< Comment #33 @ 00:33 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Khorney

Noam Chomsky on Marijuana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxonXaq9NY&am...annel_page

<< Comment #54 @ 07:44 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #33

And I thought people listened to Chomsky!

Obama needs to address this :(

<< Comment #37 @ 02:20 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Thorin

I think abuse is best summed up by this quote:

"If you smoke even ONE whole fucking joint a day you're a burn out. 5 joints a day is fucking INSANE. That's like 20 cheeseburgers."
-Joe Rogan

Even then there are exceptions depending on the person and if they need it for pain relief etc etc etc. As usual there are a million different factors for all kinds of different people but everyone will insist on treating the issue as though either it's 100% fine because they don't see any personal problems with it or it's 100% terrible because they saw someone smoke nonstop all day for 10 years.

Edited by Thorin at 02:23 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #39 @ 04:04 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic

..or does it?

Yep.

<< Comment #40 @ 04:38 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vorpal

smoke da dank kush all day wu for life

<< Comment #64 @ 10:54 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac

Now available online:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=16578...&hl=en

Go see it - especially Jamerio, Vedic and others who still live in the dark.

edited to include vedic

Edited by sarac at 11:25 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #66 @ 11:22 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #64

School.

Go to it - especially sarac and others who still live in the basement.

<< Comment #67 @ 11:32 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #64

Mate I don't live in the dark, I have seen first hand the effects of pot, whichever way you look at it making it easier for modern society to space themselves out is a bad thing.

Its only stoners like you who are desperate to make their habbit more socially acceptable that care.

For the rest of people who can relax via normal methods its the classic case of dependents trying to justify their habbit because they know no better. Congratulations, you have qualified as an average citizen.

Perhaps you need to go to the doctors for some valium or something if you find that conventional methods of relaxation are not working out for you.

Edited by Jamerio at 11:33 UTC, 3 May 2009

<< Comment #72 @ 12:21 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #67

fyi i've never smoked it.

<< Comment #76 @ 14:38 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio ' - Reply to #72

Good for you. But the whole point of your argument is why is something that is LESS BAD banned.

You should not be justyfying something based on more serious vices. you should judge it on its own merits and acknowledge that even if it were safer than drink and smokes, its still something which will have a negative impact on modern society.

Otherwise, why not go out rape women and think its ok because jack the ripper used to kill them. That's basically what you're saying, you're ignoring the fact that something is bad in its own right by comparing to a greater evil.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

<< Comment #78 @ 14:43 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Liam - Reply to #76

Wow an actual good point, keep it up dawg

<< Comment #80 @ 14:54 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #76

Wow, how horrifying that something is bad for you. Did you know that if you consume 10 liters of water in an hour you would die from water intoxication? Let's ban water!

<< Comment #95 @ 20:55 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #80

It seems smoking has conveniently made you forget that you need water to survive.

<< Comment #96 @ 22:08 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #95

heheheheheheHEHE... yeah it would be stupid to ban water since we need it. That was the whole point of the joke, moron.

Still, there are tons of things we don't really need that are "bad" for us. Like candy, who the fuck needs candy. It can't possibly make us happy since it's BAD FOR OUR HEALTH. Yeah, let's definitely ban candy. Now we're at it let's ban coffee as well. And pure salt! Yeah, those bags of salt are nothing but poison for you. I'm sorry buddy but I just don't think you're capable of not eating more than a spoonful at a time.

<< Comment #97 @ 22:18 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #96

I would agree with those restrictions, were they made more reasonable.

<< Comment #109 @ 10:59 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #95

Anyone using logic and common sense in the legalization debate is a heavy stoner and also a moron.

It is almost impossible to get through to "believers", because they do not need facts, the do not need to argue, they just "know" their opinion is right. And so they preach their belief without the need to question themselfes.
Anyone oposing this opinion is morally impaired, again, there is no need to argue if you just "feel" how right you are!

Edited by crea* at 11:00 UTC, 4 May 2009

<< Comment #115 @ 16:29 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #109

exactly - once you pull the "well you're just a drug addict anyway" you've really lost ...

<< Comment #120 @ 21:17 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #109

...you call that logic? You guys aren't helping your side of the debate here.

<< Comment #123 @ 21:51 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #120

Sure that's logic. If only the possibility of abusing a substance leads to prohibition, that is hypocrisy, because you can abuse almost any substance.

One thing is funny though, most of the substances we consume day in day out might kill you when you abuse them, but not weed.

<< Comment #124 @ 22:14 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #123

It wasn't a proper reply, it was a straw man. You didn't reply at all to the original point, you just went off on a tangent.

I didn't bother addressing that issue, since I believe Jamerio intends to do so on his own - I just wanted to point out how stupid your unrelated post was.

Edited by Vedic at 22:15 UTC, 4 May 2009

<< Comment #125 @ 00:55 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #124

I don't care what you think is a "proper reply". It is logical to assume that if you ban something for a certain reason, and the same reason applies for something else, you should ban that too.

By the water example he disproved the point that marijuana is banned because it can be bad for you.

I adressed your style of arguing, which is really cheap. I know it was a joke, I wanted to point out that most legalization debates go that way.

<< Comment #126 @ 00:57 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #125

Hey great, but that has NOTHING to do with what he said. How is it logical to argue a point with something totally unrelated?

<< Comment #128 @ 01:42 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #126

I think I made myself clear, so maybe we are talking about different "that" and "it" here.

<< Comment #129 @ 01:47 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #128

If two values both have a value of 1, the sum of those values is 2. Logical, isn't it? Unrelated.

<< Comment #130 @ 12:03 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #129

I'm not sure if you are trolling me here...

I commented on rolf's logic, not mine. His reply was logical.

Maybe you were refering to my comment as illogical, because it had nothing to do with rolf's original post. No it hadn't, I did not try to support rolf's comment, I replied to you. So there was no need for my post to be related to rolf's.

I'm going to stop now, feel free to comment but don't expect further replies to this.

<< Comment #144 @ 20:54 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #130

Not trolling, just taking you to school.

<< Comment #174 @ 16:44 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #130

Vedic trolls everyone.

<< Comment #99 @ 00:29 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

erok - Reply to #76

I would never want to live in your definition of utopia.

<< Comment #74 @ 12:33 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aaron - Reply to #67

oh noes I've seen the first hand effects of people eating too much and being lazy!!11

uh oes

<< Comment #77 @ 14:40 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

somebodyshootme - Reply to #74

the onion had this article once that suggested a correlation between smoking cannabis and getting baked.

<< Comment #309 @ 03:13 UTC, 11 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

xero- ' - Reply to #67

You've seen the effects of pot first hand? What kind of retarded, I've never read up on marijuana before in my life and accept whatever the government tells me kind of bullshit is this? You're only line of defense are these ridiculous slippery slope situations 'OMG LEGALIZE WEED? WHY DON'T WE JUST RAPE EVERYONE INSTEAD' What the fuck? :|

<< Comment #81 @ 17:31 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hnns

jamerio is a social reject who claimed nobody actually likes beer but only drink to to be cool. why talk to him about weed? ;) if a conversation with him goes beyond pac-man and arcade games, plz don't go there.

8%

<< Comment #87 @ 19:26 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

reyu - Reply to #81

I might have missed it, wanna laugh, link? ;D

<< Comment #93 @ 20:22 UTC, 3 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac

lol longest piece of whine ever

<< Comment #101 @ 01:58 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Vo0 - Reply to #81

Lol did he really say the beer part somewhere? :D

<< Comment #110 @ 11:11 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hnns - Reply to #101

Yep. Cba finding a link.

<< Comment #191 @ 21:19 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #81

I'm going to start referring to the "after school special" people I've met as "Jamerios" from now on. What a douche.

<< Comment #113 @ 12:00 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

xoji

I'm really surprised you've only just learned this.

New evidence in favour of legalising marijuana practically comes out daily. So many people blindly believe all the bullshit propaganda the government pumps out it's really disheartening, especially when you've got the fucking internet coexisting with this crap. The facts are out there and are easily accessible.

The latest UK advert against marjiuana usage is hilariously bad and misinforming. I can't believe they can get away with that shit.

Read:
The Emperor Wears No Clothes

Google site search on digg.com

<< Comment #116 @ 16:30 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac - Reply to #113

Agree, I'm as surprised as you. And mad at my school, that once taught me these false "facts".

Also just learned that Portugal has legalized all drugs - and their death rates + HIV infect rates have dropped severely since.

<< Comment #122 @ 21:47 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #116

huh? even the distribution of drugs? i haven't heard anything about this

<< Comment #127 @ 01:29 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ear - Reply to #116

Actually they decriminalized drug use which is quite different

<< Comment #117 @ 17:38 UTC, 4 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

azmo

Just sell all drugs on Systembolaget, I dont buy the "if it was legal everyone would do it all the tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiime" agrument. Taking the drug abusers out of the black market would generate taxes and stop the drug users dependence on a business that heavily exploits them and kills them through stuff like cement in their drugs. Look at all the functioning alcoholics, things would be a lot worse for them if they had to live under the same conditions as the other addicts.

Since its already there and under no circumstances will go away why dont make the best of the situation? Probably because its HUGE business and the people making money of it combined with fundamentalists will keep it the way it is, but still...

Also just to clarify, I hardly even drink these days, a glass of wine or a beer with food now and then, can hardly remember the last time I was really drunk and I almost never smoke weed. if it was up to me I would probably just remove all drugs from the earth since they cause much more harm than they do good, but thats not gonna happen.

<< Comment #131 @ 12:23 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist

weed makes you lazy and unproductive, it's a fact. you can't work, you can't pay taxes, you suck at military.

give me one reason a sane government should legalize it.

<< Comment #134 @ 15:18 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #131

friend of mine smokes very much. He also work around 70 hours a week, because he basically lives at his work. And he is very good at what he does graphic, web, sound and video design. Plus running a sound studio. He actually has to turn job offers down.

So, I would agree that a lot of people who smoke weed become quite lazy and aren't in control of their life. But there are clear exceptions. Some other friends manage their engineering studies just fine, and at my uni we have a drop out rate of 60 - 80%. Of course I can't count those who drop out because they smoke in the first year.

In my friend's case I would even argue that he can work better because of smoking weed because he has multiple sklerosis. Of course this is even more of an exception.

<< Comment #135 @ 15:49 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #134

and your point is?

<< Comment #136 @ 16:22 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #135

you are wrong about the working part and it can be used for medicinal uses.

Did you also consider that that your arguments also apply to sleeping pills if taken out of turn?

<< Comment #138 @ 16:38 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #136

"In my friend's case I would even argue that he can work better because of smoking weed because he has multiple sklerosis."

way to prove your point

<< Comment #142 @ 19:12 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

micke - Reply to #138

You claim:
smoking weed = can't work

He claims:
smoking weed and having multiple sclerosis = can work

then you say that's a bad example.
So you're saying multiple sclerosis makes you more keen on working?

<< Comment #143 @ 19:23 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #142

you nailed it on the head bubba.

<< Comment #151 @ 06:39 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #143

well, let us hear your point then?

<< Comment #157 @ 09:05 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #151

exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

<< Comment #159 @ 09:14 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #157

yeah, if only someone tested the medicinal effects on MS and wrote about it, we could name it "medicinal study". And if only it were possible to find that with some kind of seacher we could name "google" over a connection of servers with access to databases we could name "the internet".

It is proven that cannabis can help relieve certain muscle spasms which would prevent working.

tl;dr: A personal example can only be the exception if there are no similar example.

still too long: You're an idiot.

<< Comment #160 @ 09:33 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #159

I knew you wouldn't get it so I'll draw it for you, once again.

you're proving that a lesser harm(pot) works by alleviating greater harm(sclerosis). your friend is therefore an exception to the general principle (people who don't suffer from sclerosis) and as such not valid for proving a point.

on the contrary you can find tons of real research on the negative effects of pot mostly in terms of memory and motivation in this so called "internet" of yours.

<< Comment #164 @ 09:55 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #160

no, the point is that you wrote "you can't work"

and that stays wrong. Because it if helps people to become able to work it is obvious (except for you of course) that if won't hinder someone else.

Are you trying to imply that MS somehow sucks up the negative effects of cannabis?

Additionally, I would like you to show some kind of proof before you promote your own biased assumptions to any kind of a "rule". Having bad memory does not prevent you from working. Also I somehow doubt that is any kind of an argument for making it illegal.

Or should we bad not sleeping enough, not doing sports and aging as well? Cause all those are proven to have similar effects. Yet noone tells tired, unhealthy and old people (talking 50+ here) that they can't work. Also people who have to inhale bad fumes at work sometimes tend to be impaired by that.

Additionally, studies involving heavy pot smokers vs. casual smokers or non smokers can imo are never reliable. Because you would need to be certain that the people would have been the same without any cannabis. And except if you did a twin study, you can't really be sure of that. Especially if you see what some heavy smokers did before starting with pot ;)
I am however not saying that it does not impair memory. I will however say that it is not a justifiable reason to ban it.

I hear heavy drinkers don't have such a good memory either + they smell bad.

<< Comment #165 @ 10:05 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #164

can't != won't

but in our specific case, the result is the same

<< Comment #166 @ 10:34 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #165

no its not. It depends on the amount not the drug as such.
Big and important difference.

<< Comment #183 @ 20:04 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #166

stop nitpicking. if you smoke a light joint sure it can relax you and make you concentrate better on work. however for the VAST MAJORITY of people smoking pot regularly has a an effect of lazyness and forgetfulness.

not to mention people who smoke pot are generally not very interested in following authorities and going to war. to a government that might be important.

Edited by tourist at 20:05 UTC, 6 May 2009

<< Comment #184 @ 20:11 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #183

[citation needed]

<< Comment #185 @ 20:20 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #184

short term memory
http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/potmemory.htm
"A loss of LTP in the hippocampus where memories are formed would prove to be an accurate assessment of the fact that marijuana causes loss of short-term memory (Diana et al 1998). In fact evidence has been found that 9-THC destroys short-term memory (Heyser, 1993)
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana#Effects
"Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression,[30][31]; however, no causal mechanism has been proven, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community."

not to mention "amotivational syndrome" etc

altho there's still debate going on in scientific communities, everyone who's smoked and who's met a lot of smokers can tell you that these effects are real and quite prevalent. some people do really well while smoking regularly, the majority doesn't.

Edited by tourist at 20:21 UTC, 6 May 2009

<< Comment #188 @ 21:08 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #185

Here's a real source for a study on Cannabinoid effects on memory:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l10nwq/?p...&pi=27
Stating "long term effects are unclear".

About the Psychosis study, I read about it the other day and it concludes there's a statistical 5% higher chance(among female users in that case afaik) of psychosis if you smoke intensely for years.
Yeah, there are people out there smoking every day and they're not being very responsible about themselves. But it's not drugs doing that to them. It's the shitty society they were raised in. And yeah, I know, you can't all live in awesome Scandinavia where all is fine and dandy.

Anyway, I can't relate to the "everyone who's smoked and who's met a lot of smokers can tell you that these effects are real and quite prevalent". Everyone I know who smokes are as happy and successful as they were 5 years ago. Personally I'm even more successful now, but that's probably because I quit playing games.

It's a bullshit statement btw. The one I quoted. People who's life are shit "because they smoke pot" can also be there because they do other drugs. Drink tons of alcohol. Smoke normal cigarettes. I can't see why us normal citizens should be punished because a bunch of people were rejected by society and failed to be properly educated.

<< Comment #197 @ 21:35 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #188

"long term effects are unclear" - yes I'm sure all 25 books you listed have that exact quote.

even if long term effects are unclear short term effects are very clear, and if you smoke regularly short term is long term.

<< Comment #200 @ 21:44 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #197

Must be confusing for you

<< Comment #201 @ 21:47 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #200

only for a zeitgeist pothead who doesn't even know how to quote literature.

<< Comment #203 @ 21:58 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #201

Who's nitpicking now?

<< Comment #206 @ 21:59 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #203

scientists conclude: "led sucks cock"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l10nwq/?p...&pi=27

prove me wrong

<< Comment #208 @ 22:04 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #201

lol, you're the one linking to your grandmas website. I linked to acknowledged books of research in the field.

If you did a search for memory within that book series you would've found this: http://www.springerlink.com/content/x4x23795p...&pi=12
Which explains exactly what I was claiming.

Side thought: man, the nerds on this site are dense.

<< Comment #211 @ 22:19 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #208

go watch more zeitgeist.

<< Comment #213 @ 22:20 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #211

YOU ARE DENSE

<< Comment #215 @ 22:27 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #213

oh and btw:

"The most robust finding with respect to memory is a deficit in working and short-term memory."

go shoot yourself with a spade idiot.

<< Comment #239 @ 06:20 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #215

Do you know how to read?

Does that quote say anything about long term effects? You lose short term memory functions in the moment of being high, that's obvious.
It furthermore says that the Cannabinoid reaction on cb1 agonists "may" induce long term effects in the remembering of information, while the reaction on cb1 antagonists enhances memory by reversing the effects agonist effects..
Incidentally, stimulation of agonist receptors may prolong life in sclerosis patients as it prolongs life in mice with sclerosis. A double edged sword I guess.

For more information, borrow the book at the library and read 5.1.6

<< Comment #248 @ 09:02 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #239

weak attempt. your own source clearly states there is a detrimental effect on memory. if you're a regular smoker guess what that amounts to.

<< Comment #253 @ 09:40 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #248

"You're wrong and I'm right". Try with a proper argument for once.

<< Comment #255 @ 09:45 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #253

stop trolling.

<< Comment #257 @ 10:21 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #255

First you fail to recognize the invalidity of your own source and when a proper source is linked you fail to interpret the words. And instead of admitting your mistake and your lack of factual insight you attack me.
Must suck that a "pothead" is smarter than you.

<< Comment #260 @ 10:44 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #257

you fail to provide the citation that says "long term effects are unclear" instead you give some half-assed interpretation that's not nearly anything to what's actually being said. give the exact quote or shut up.

so far your source is completely similar to my source - supporting the point that weed cuases short term memory loss.

please provide valid source if you expect to be considered anything more than a troll and a sore loser in this discussion.

<< Comment #262 @ 10:58 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #260

He must have forgotten!

<< Comment #263 @ 11:20 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #262

no surprises there.

<< Comment #284 @ 12:13 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #262

*golf clap*

<< Comment #266 @ 11:54 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #260

Half assed interpretation? You don't even attempt to make an interpretation let alone explain. What you quoted had no connection to long term effects.

The effect on the agonist receptors is how cannabis affects short term memory. Antagonists reverse the effect. Since the experiment is not controlled enough they can't say what the real effect of weed usage is. Leading to the quote underneath stating that upcoming an controlled research should unfold long-term encoding of information. In other words, long term effects are now unclear.

"The emerging role of the endogenous cannabinoid system in the hippocampus may be to facilitate the induction of long-term potentiation/the encoding of information."

Btw, my original quote about long term effects is from YOUR wikipedia link, using this book as source.

Good day

<< Comment #268 @ 13:14 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #266

which part of source did you not understand? your personal interpretation is of no relevance. where is the actual source that states "long term effects are unclear"? please refrain from further involvement in this discussion if all you're going to bring to the table is subjective interpretations and hearsay.

<< Comment #269 @ 14:11 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #268

Why should I have to defend my statements? Isn't it you who claim that weed makes you forgetful without using any liable source whatsoever.

Here's the direct quote from wiki I was referring to the whole time:
"lowered blood pressure, impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term episodic and working memory.[16] Long-term effects are less clear."
16 is the book I was referring to, stating that there short-term memory loss is _episodic_, something you clearly misinterpreted as "recurring" long after use.

I furthermore referred to some research on long term remembering but the data was invalid due to a number of factors, including the antagonist/agonist receptor effect, and new research has to be done to determine long term effects after cannabis usage. Even if I, somehow, misinterpreted all this there's still no evidence for your first claim.

Next time, think twice before making prejudice and wild claims.

Finally, it is a good day, got my microchip to work as intended. Will probably get home and watch Lost now. And no. A "get lost " joke is just dumb, don't do it. Do you even read this far in my comments? I have my doubts.

<< Comment #270 @ 14:48 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #269

"Long-term effects are less clear"

but you see, this is not what you wrote. you wrote "long term effects are unclear". which is not true, they are less clear, which can mean there's less data one them but they do exist. nowhere does it state that these effects do not exist.

<< Comment #274 @ 17:29 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #270

Less clear is still unclear. "Unclear" is the definition of something being not clear. Talk about nitpicking.
And no it states plenty of places that current human tests are insufficient. There are partially conclusive tests but you should always look for what exactly is being tested. If it's memory loss in the moment of being high, reduction of memory capability, continuous loss of memory(capability), how much cannabis is needed for a specific effect, the mental health of test person etc.. And of course if the study is valid. Like this one! My doctor friend bought it as a requirement for her studies. I think it's valid. But what do I know, I'm just a pothead, right?

<< Comment #275 @ 17:53 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #274

the fact is, you have no evidence that long term effects don't exist. if anything there's plenty of empiric evidence for the contrary.

<< Comment #276 @ 18:12 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #275

If anything you have provided none.

<< Comment #278 @ 22:30 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #276

empiric evidence means fuck all. what I'm saying you can not confirm nor deny that long term effects exist for the lack of proper research. either way, my point stands.

<< Comment #281 @ 08:20 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #278

No it doesn't. Without evidence everything you say means shit. Kinda like theists claiming they can prove God.

<< Comment #282 @ 08:58 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #281

the evidence is pretty clear. short term effects are real. if you smoke say, one joint in the morning and few in the evening every day (common pattern) you will experience these short term effects. continuously. so effectively it doesn't matter weather long term effects exist or not.

<< Comment #243 @ 06:50 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #215

The same quote applies to sleepiness and alcohol.

Why the fuck are those still legal?

<< Comment #246 @ 08:23 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #243

I think most people arguing here wouldn't mind that being illegal, either.

<< Comment #247 @ 08:41 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #246

yeh.

<< Comment #251 @ 09:17 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #243

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1691216#pid1691216

<< Comment #221 @ 23:00 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #208

what, you're not even going to try to reply to the total handing of your ass I just gave you? (and with your own source no less)

typical for a lazy pothead quitter.

<< Comment #240 @ 06:27 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

rolf - Reply to #221

I was sleeping. Got uniwork to do when I've eaten my breakfast.

<< Comment #229 @ 00:03 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #201

#108

Edited by crea* at 00:04 UTC, 7 May 2009

<< Comment #230 @ 00:12 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #229

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bplimaetOd0&feature=related

it's about as relevant as your post.

<< Comment #232 @ 00:52 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

crea* ' - Reply to #230

I should have linked comment #114, maybe then you'd understand

Edited by crea* at 00:56 UTC, 7 May 2009

<< Comment #242 @ 06:47 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #183

was gonna reply but the other posts show just how raged you already are, so no real point there.

but what the hell with "people who smoke pot are generally not very interested in following authorities and going to war. to a government that might be important. "

are you trying to say that pot MAKES you think like that???
Or could it just maybe be that the people smoke pot BECAUSE they think like that? Maybe even see it as being a little rebellious.

Next up: Pot makes you gay and you feel the need to eat babies.

You know I will try to replicate your line of thought in another example:

Most people who are successful and work a lot often drink loads of coffee and they often smoke. Therefore the government should force everyone to drink at least a liter of coffee a day and smoke half a pack of cigarettes. Start at twelve for maximum effect!

<< Comment #250 @ 09:16 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #242

the best example is the most obvious one - football hooligans.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/141/hooligans.shtml

government allowed it for this particular case but at the same time banned alcohol. surprise surprise.

<< Comment #252 @ 09:37 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #250

holy shit? peaceful hooligans? No riots?
Legalisation is a fucking NIGHTMARE!

tHIS MUST NOT HAPPEN EVER AGAIN!!!!!

Aren't you supposed to present arguments for your point not against it?

6%

<< Comment #254 @ 09:44 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #252

one would think a 40yr old academic citizen would be able to read and comprehend a simple statement. guess I was wrong.

in case you missed it( you did ) the previous post is a perfect argument for my point.

<< Comment #256 @ 09:55 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #254

your original point being that weed should be illegal and no mention of alcohol?

Yeah, well I think even an 28 year old academic citizen should be able to see a slight contradiction there. (where did you get the 40 from, anyway???)

Or did you even mean the part "give me one reason a sane government should legalize it" because I think you just gave an example where legalisation was a good move.

Some people will always do something stupid in their free time. Be it getting drunk and bashing someones head in or getting stoned and relaxing.

<< Comment #258 @ 10:31 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #256

what in the world gave you the idea that *I* thought weed should be illegal?

<< Comment #259 @ 10:39 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #258

hmmm, I kinda derived that from you initial post. But upon reviewing it I agree that it can be read differently. My fault.

But still you just did give an argument why weed should be legalized ;P

Also the good argument taxmoney earned with the sales also always works.

<< Comment #283 @ 12:12 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy - Reply to #183

I decided never to go to war long before I started toking up.

<< Comment #287 @ 12:52 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #283

you won't be waltzin maltilda forever son.

<< Comment #152 @ 06:44 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #138

not like you had any prove for your generalizing assumption, not even an example for that matter.

so until then: my point > yours

<< Comment #149 @ 04:57 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #131

"can't work, can't pay taxes, suck at military"

Are you being sarcastic?

<< Comment #132 @ 12:30 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

T-B0N3

I think weed is fine, but i have seen people going pretty crazy after using it alot. But they smoked like 2/3 joints per hour. And i have also seen people going down cause of the alcohol. So id say that your fine as long as you dont use drugs structural, but everyone should decide that for themselves. I get totally wasted on alcohol and weed about once a week but i don't use much besides that so im quite fine.

<< Comment #133 @ 15:03 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

slfjsiadfjsioa

i don't agree with the 'people can decide for them selves' argument, in the sense that everyone has the information to make an informed decision because they don't, especially regarding their own susceptibility to a drug addiction, it's impossible to know.

i sort of agree with jamerio, most people start taking drugs because it's a social norm or socially acceptable, some develop a problem, most don't. i don't think marijuana is worst than say alcohol, but if it was technically possible to ban all drugs then i think it should be done(minus prescriptions).

does that mean we should ban all recreational drugs? no, because for drugs which are the social norm or socially acceptable, it's impossible(alcohol prohibition). the further from the social norm a drug is, the more it's outlawed. is marijuana overly outlawed? depends on the social norms of where ever we're talking about.

<< Comment #148 @ 04:56 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #133

Alcohol is drastically worse than marijuana. While some dumbass "after school special" types will "get psychologically addicted" there is, in fact, no physiological withdrawal symptom based around THC.
Alcohol withdrawals can hospitalize people.

<< Comment #155 @ 06:52 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #148

as can alcohol consumption.

<< Comment #169 @ 10:56 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

slfjsiadfjsioa - Reply to #148

though it might be better than alcohol, there is withdrawal(low energy and depression i think, along with others), it's usually smoked(damages lungs etc.) and though it has been exaggerated in the press, thc is linked to schizophrenia.

i don't think the argument that it's not as bad as alcohol is really a justification for it to be legal. social acceptance and norm is what legality is based on and can only be based on. if a drug is the norm, it's impossible to outlaw, if a drug isn't the norm then it becomes possible to outlaw to an extent and prevents people from taking it in the first place.

saying it's not as bad as x, y and z, is really silly. it's like saying having aids is worst than having athletes foot, so we shouldn't treat athletes foot.

Edited by offo at 11:21 UTC, 6 May 2009

<< Comment #171 @ 14:17 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #169

I've taken months long breaks without blinking. At worst I've been slightly irritable after a few days, but nowhere near the degree that a nicotine withdrawal would cause.
I generally smoke pot daily, and have for about 15 years. I'm 28 now, I'll be 29 in December.
I have 2 IT certifications (mcse, ccna), work for the best company within hundreds of miles (an ISP), raise a 4 year old son, workout regularly (running, jumprope and strength training with weights). I have a retirement plan and the best health insurance I've ever even heard of.
I have never been late for work in my 4 years with this company, I'm always first pick when a higher position opens. I am the guy that the boss asks for help on special cases, 'cause I'm the one that can get things fixed.
I read, play guitar, and all the other normal things people do. Took the Mrs. to see Wolverine last night.
The majority of my friends have known me for at least 10 years, though I do meet new people fairly regularly too.
I've never gone to work high, nor drunk.
I read to my son every night, and teach him things he's not learning at school daily. I donate to charity (United Way) and pay my taxes. He won't be exposed to it until he's much older, 'cause I'm not stupid. But if he's 15 and wants to smoke a joint, that's fine by me as long as he does it at home where I know he's safe.
The nonsense propaganda is just that. Nonsense.
Stupid people are stupid people, don't blame the plant.

2%

<< Comment #177 @ 16:55 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

slfjsiadfjsioa - Reply to #171

but you can't read

14%

<< Comment #179 @ 19:08 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #177

lol
I was responding to your argument of "don't legalize it just because there are worse things that are legal" and then you went on to claim that it was addictive. I was arguing that it isn't. l2r yourself.
You were talking about social norms being the deciding factor. I was pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

<< Comment #178 @ 17:08 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Furore - Reply to #171

If you're fine, you're fine, if not, quit.
The trouble is when it starts fucking people up, and they lack the insight or ability to stop. And it fucks a good many people up. If you can smoke and have a good life, that's swell, but I think people respond differently. The most obvious thing is having a shit memory.

<< Comment #181 @ 19:27 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #178

AMEN to personal accountability. There's nothing in this post of yours that I disagree with.

<< Comment #182 @ 19:58 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #171

"Took the Mrs. to see Wolverine last night."

idiot.

<< Comment #187 @ 20:57 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #182

she enjoyed it.

idiot

should it have been a romantic comedy? It was her idea to go see it. I just tagged along. What she's REALLY looking forward to is Terminator 4. Terminator is her favorite movie serial.

Edited by focus at 21:06 UTC, 6 May 2009

<< Comment #219 @ 22:56 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #187

don't feed the troll from croatia. :E

<< Comment #222 @ 23:07 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #219

I never trolled anyone in my life. it's not my fault people are too dense to present and understand simple arguments in a discussion.

as for me calling him an idiot I think that stating "Took the Mrs. to see Wolverine last night." next to one's life achievements gives me enough reason to call him an idiot.

<< Comment #223 @ 23:11 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #222

maybe it's a little ... metaphoric???

<< Comment #225 @ 23:17 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #223

oh wow, a metaphore. just what was he trying to say, that he has a wife? congratulatons. that he can afford a theater ticket? salutation worthy indeed.

<< Comment #226 @ 23:24 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #225

way2 be pessimistic, Mr. Grumpy.

<< Comment #227 @ 23:28 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #226

I have no idea what you're talking about.

<< Comment #231 @ 00:43 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #225

That wasn't a list of "life achievements". ..except maybe the CCNA. That was not easy AT ALL.

It was my response to your implication that there's something inherently wrong with me just because I smoke pot.
Rather than saying "I live a healthy, happy, normal life" I gave it some context so that perhaps you could relate to it and see that smoking pot doesn't automatically make someone a pathetic loser. I'm sorry my point was lost on you.
I'm not trying to convince anyone else to smoke pot, so don't take it that way. As a matter of fact, you're beyond reproach it seems with your accusations. I'm not going to argue further with you, since you're already convinced entirely that you're correct, even though I offered myself as a contradiction to your claims.
I'll leave it as is, we'll have to agree to disagree. Have a good day, I've often enjoyed your posts on here, and I suspect I'll continue to.

3%

<< Comment #301 @ 13:14 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lewl - Reply to #231

Masturbation time: I agree with you.

And for tourist: you missed the point of focus's post. With his many examples he was stating that he lives a normal balanced (maybe even pretty succesful) life that has not been handicapped by his weed smoking habits.

<< Comment #297 @ 09:35 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lewl - Reply to #169

social norms are all times changing. it is pretty common nowadays to see in series (family guy, weeds) or in movies (all of kevin smith and seth rogen movies etc.) where characters use pot and it's not condemned or if it is, it's considered as a minor problem.

many stand up comedians talk about weed and drugs openly like dave chappelle and joe rogan.

gay marriages were outlawed due to social norms and still are but the change is in the air. and so it is with smoking weed.

i agree with your point that there are negative sides that are real, but like focus already pointed out using social norm to justify the outlawing of pot is just silly.

<< Comment #298 @ 11:47 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #297

Hey guys, Family Guy says it's cool, so it's socially acceptable. Let's not get caught up on details like the fact that the show isn't funny, and appeals to the lowest forms of life capable of pressing the power button on a television remote.

<< Comment #299 @ 12:33 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lewl - Reply to #298

i'm just pointing out that the public opinion about marihuana is changing and the exposure of it in the media reflects that. it was just one example amongst others, but you clearly stopped reading after that.

Edited by paras1te at 12:35 UTC, 10 May 2009

<< Comment #300 @ 13:10 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #299

While the rest were still pretty terrible examples, that one took the cake.

<< Comment #302 @ 13:20 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lewl - Reply to #300

i'm not arguing about the quality of the shows and movies in my examples. they were there just to point out the positive (even glorifying perhaps) approach towards weed smoking that is seen in the media today. you cannot argue with the fact that family guy and weeds is on tv. you cannot argue with the fact that you can see seth rogen and kevin smith movies in theaters. you cannot argue with the fact that dave chappelle and joe rogan talk about weed in a positive way. and all of those examples have followers, fans and they reach people wich would indicate the shift of mood.

so yeah you kinda missed the point :) i don't care what you think about family guy

<< Comment #303 @ 13:26 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #302

The point is that you're trying to defend the validity of the attention it gets through sources that already preach to that choir due to the demographic involved. You might as well also try to say that idiocy is socially acceptable due to the fact that the people in your examples exude stupidity.

The attempts at justification continue to bore me.

<< Comment #304 @ 13:31 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

lewl - Reply to #303

do you have any sort of diagrams or figures that show what kind of people watch to these kinds of movies and shows?

edit: you already have a biased opinion about what kind of people watch family guy that, i assume, is based on nothing. i have never seen or heard of a study that indicates stupidity of any kind in any of my examples. i don't know how you rate different people but one just doesn't go to the hollywood and make a lot of money by doing nothing. the fact that these guys are on the top of show biz isn't due to the fact that they are saying stuff that people don't want to hear. they are saying things that people WANT to hear.

i would also like you to name smoething on tv that demonizes smoking weed that isn't coming out of bill o'reillys mouth to prove i'm wrong.

and even more on the fact that you missed the point. i'm not saying you should legalize marihuana because of the public opinion or social norm, i'm saying if you want to use social norm as an argument to back up your views on criminalizing marihuana, you are wrong.

Edited by paras1te at 13:46 UTC, 10 May 2009

<< Comment #137 @ 16:22 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hnns

too many clueless nerds posting here

7%

<< Comment #190 @ 21:18 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #137

Yeah, it's amazing. There's no point in replying.

<< Comment #196 @ 21:29 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #137

And not enough informed/experienced people for me to want to do anymore in this thread than make small talk with focus.

<< Comment #199 @ 21:40 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #196

yes, nobody has ever smoked pot a lot except yourself.

<< Comment #202 @ 21:56 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #199

Yes, everybody actually uses their brain to think except for yourself.

<< Comment #204 @ 21:58 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #202

oh you mean by tooting legalization while admitting that it can fuck you up in another post? it's obviously done a god job in your case.

<< Comment #207 @ 22:02 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #204

You're mentally ill, shut up already.

1%

<< Comment #212 @ 22:19 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #207

you have 0 arguments just nerd rage. next.

<< Comment #217 @ 22:40 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #204

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1691004#pid1691004

Also, who here ever said weed wasn't, in at least one way or another, bad? It's just that its being illegal contradicts the legality of alcohol and tobacco which, unlike weed, have both killed many, many people either directly or indirectly. Now, I'm not saying you should be able to drive while baked as fuck, but you should be able to smoke weed publicly, at least where smoking cigs are also permitted, without having to worry about it being illegal. I mean, fuck, regardless of whether or not you blaze, marijuana smoke even smells milder and better than tobacco smoke. The smell doesn't linger on your clothes as much, either.

Led is right. You are mentally ill. Or just retarded. I can't tell too well.

<< Comment #224 @ 23:14 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #217

oh yes, instead of saying "fucked me up real bad" you changed it to "I just felt like wanting to pass out". way to correct your statement sir.

if you don't think that losing consciousness for any outside reason isn't exactly healthy for your brain it's no wonder you can't understand basic premises in a discussion.

<< Comment #233 @ 02:36 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #224

At this point, I don't know who's more lost: me (because of you) or you (because you're fucked).

Edited by advent™ at 02:37 UTC, 7 May 2009

<< Comment #261 @ 10:53 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #233

if me being "fucked" is the best argument you can come up with for your lack of understanding, there isn't much to be discussed, is there?

<< Comment #264 @ 11:34 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #261

Your 'argument' right now is taking what he said (fucked up real bad) literally when its obvious he's exaggerating. I also said something similar when the worst I got was a little woozy. It's not like overdosing in heroin.

It's really pathetic, you're so determined to 'win the discussion' that you have to hold on to the thinnest arguments. You choose to ignore or misinterpret every reply that address the relevant points.

Can you shut up now?

Edited by led at 21:56 UTC, 7 May 2009

<< Comment #265 @ 11:44 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #264

no

<< Comment #267 @ 12:14 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #264

your inability to use language is not my concern.

<< Comment #272 @ 15:26 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

led - Reply to #267

Couldn't have proved my point any better. Go away, troll.

<< Comment #273 @ 15:45 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #272

if presenting arguments in a discussion rages you so much, you can always put me on ignore and go on happily with your business.

<< Comment #214 @ 22:25 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #202

are you in vancouver? i'm in nelson. this thread is silly as with all online marijuana discussions

<< Comment #216 @ 22:31 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #214

Yeah, I live on the UBC campus right now.

<< Comment #279 @ 06:28 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Venim - Reply to #214

I went to Nelson once in winter. nice place :)

<< Comment #145 @ 23:46 UTC, 5 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Nukm

when was marihuana legalized in the netherlands? (actually i dont know how the laws exactly are, but i could smoke pot without getting into trouble, so guess its just marihuana and its legalized everywhere)
am i missing something or why is nobody taking a look at how things went there

<< Comment #154 @ 06:50 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #145

hnns answered it above your post ;)

I suppose some dutchie you write about that, cause I for one only no some disassociated parts (e.g. they have many illegal plantations and that shit gets transported out of country)

Also afaik it is still more restricted than alcohol. You can brew your own beer and sell it if you want to.

<< Comment #162 @ 09:40 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1 - Reply to #145

its not legal in the netherlands!!! its just tolerated

<< Comment #150 @ 06:02 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671

Marijuana is a pretty recreational drug, is ideally used for enhancement rather than escapism, and requires an unrealistic amount (imagine smoking a whole room's worth -- literally, like, 2000 cubic feet -- of good weed) to overdose. Not to mention tolerance is trivial, and in Vancouver, you get way more bang for your buck from an eighth of weed than you do from a fifth of vodka. Weed is good, nerds, so legalize it.

Oh, and did I mention that, unlike alcohol or tobacco, it can be consumed as an ingredient in food or inhaled without any smoke using a vaporizer?

Edited by advent™ at 06:03 UTC, 6 May 2009

<< Comment #153 @ 06:46 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #150

unlike alcohol .. it can be consumed as an ingredient in food

you don't know how to cook, do you?

6%

<< Comment #156 @ 09:03 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aaron - Reply to #153

he and gillz are thick as fuck

<< Comment #161 @ 09:35 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #153

neither do I but I'd love some bordeaux steak dipped in good wine.

<< Comment #167 @ 10:36 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #161

and pork with white wine and gyros with metaxa sauce <3

<< Comment #175 @ 16:50 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #153

You know how to get drunk off food? Awesome, show me how.

You idiots have obviously not tried bud bars or bud cookies or bud brownies, so you don't even realize why I'm making that comparison. I'm aware you can use beer and wine and perhaps other drinks to prepare food.

1%

<< Comment #241 @ 06:36 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #175

there are many dishes that would get kids drunk and it certainly is enough for me to "feel" the alcohol.
And others where you aren't allowed to drive any more.

If you mean get drunk the write so!

Also you could just eat lots of chocolate with liquor in it, it's not like that is any more or less food than cookies. And I would say I have tried them, probably at a time when you didn't even know what weed is. I grew up next to the Dutch border and they sell them legally there...

<< Comment #289 @ 17:16 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #241

there are many dishes that would get kids drunk and it certainly is enough for me to "feel" the alcohol.

would get kids drunk

it certainly is enough for me to "feel" the alcohol.

Lightweight. Bad example.

Also, who would eat lots of "alcoholic" chocolate to get drunk? That's stupid.

Edited by advent™ at 17:17 UTC, 8 May 2009

<< Comment #291 @ 17:30 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #289

nono, it would not be more stupid than eating cookies to get high.
It's ust a matter of how you choose to lead your life!

<< Comment #292 @ 17:35 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #291

You only need one or two bud cookies -- maybe three or four if your tolerance is high. I wouldn't know -- to get a body high, assuming you or whoever made them made them properly. Normally, when people eat regular cookies, they eat one or two anyways.

You're saying you need to eat "a lot" of chocolate to get drunk. I'm assuming that a bar of these chocolates would have no more alcohol than a can of beer or a big sip of vodka, so that indeed would be a lot of chocolate required to get you drunk. Even if said chocolate is dark chocolate, that's not very good.

(sry, thought your original reply was tourist again)

Edited by advent™ at 17:36 UTC, 8 May 2009

<< Comment #293 @ 17:37 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #292

hmm, just to clarify.

Are you really not aware that I am trolling you???

If so I guess smoking too much really dos make you slow ;P

<< Comment #294 @ 17:41 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #293

Considering that I'm pretty sure Tourist actually isn't trolling and neither are many people, it's hard to tell who's trolling and who's not unless you sift through all the stupid in this thread, so I can't say I'm concerned about that. Not to mention I thought you were Tourist at one point because of the icon anyways.

<< Comment #295 @ 18:01 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

micke - Reply to #294

used to do the same mistake. i've learned it's quite easy to tell them apart, becks is the likable one (for a german)

<< Comment #296 @ 18:24 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

becks - Reply to #295

<3

<< Comment #236 @ 02:49 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

vedic - Reply to #153

zing

<< Comment #158 @ 09:06 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #150

Alcohol is not food? Appalling! I am informed by my mate Cian O'Brien, who writes poems about pub life.

<< Comment #163 @ 09:42 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

c1

I know almost everything about weed and I have to say its not good neither bad.

If you have any question about cannabis just ask.

<< Comment #173 @ 16:07 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #163

hoooook me up with an ounce????

<< Comment #176 @ 16:51 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #173

You really want an ounce? You must have a lot of friends to blaze with.

<< Comment #180 @ 19:08 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #176

I'd assume he's talking shwag, not nugs.

<< Comment #186 @ 20:34 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #180

Haha. Who'd want to smoke an ounce of that shit? It's pretty good for making food with, though.

<< Comment #189 @ 21:10 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #186

There's decent shwag out there, and for the price difference it's often worthwhile. Granted, kind is preferred, but where I live it's not always easily attainable, so we make do :P

<< Comment #193 @ 21:22 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #189

Well, here, you don't even need to worry about having to settle for shwag because BC Bud is relatively cheap ($10 per gram, I think). All I know is my cousin in northern Florida had dirt weed that fucked me up in a bad way.

<< Comment #195 @ 21:24 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus - Reply to #193

ewwww... yeah, there's "shwag", as in not kind bud, then there's dirtweed. I assure you, I wasn't talking about the dirt weed. Bleh

You're in Canada, aren't ya? It's probably a lot easier to come by there. I'm in Louisiana, so most of the good stuff is coming from elsewhere. Primarily Oregon and North Carolina for me personally.

<< Comment #198 @ 21:38 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #193

so you're admitting that marijuana can "fuck you up in a bad way". way to prove the point.

<< Comment #205 @ 21:58 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #198

1) Figure of speech. You're saying that as if I implied that it made me sick. It didn't. I just felt like wanting to pass out without being high for maybe an hour, which is no worse than drinking one too many.

2) lol.

<< Comment #210 @ 22:08 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Pushpabon - Reply to #176

Some people prefer to smoke big blunts with lower quality weed so it doesn't get them as high as quickly as good shit and you can enjoy it longer. Not everyone likes to get instaripped junkie style with a bong.

<< Comment #218 @ 22:41 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #210

That's a good point, but I also realized that shwag is not necessarily dirt weed, as seen in focus's replies.

<< Comment #220 @ 22:59 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

[mash] - Reply to #218

schwag, nug, mug bud, dub, cup

sup?

<< Comment #228 @ 23:29 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tourist - Reply to #220

dopie talk.

<< Comment #234 @ 02:38 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #228

Crackhead.

<< Comment #238 @ 06:16 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

illogic - Reply to #210

i prefer the bong...one good hit and it's enough

<< Comment #286 @ 12:38 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

TAFKAagardenchair - Reply to #176

I got this carved out dildo off of ebay, lots of sidestream air to increase happiness hahahaha

<< Comment #192 @ 21:20 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

f0cus

It's 4:20. ... guess what I'm doin'!...

<< Comment #194 @ 21:22 UTC, 6 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #192

2:22 here.

<< Comment #244 @ 07:34 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

InDepther - Reply to #192

wanking?

<< Comment #237 @ 02:56 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Vo0

Arguing on the internet... :')

<< Comment #249 @ 09:16 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

hnns - Reply to #237

wait, i know this one

<< Comment #271 @ 14:53 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

tom - Reply to #237

so i've got this really cool demo...

<< Comment #277 @ 21:46 UTC, 7 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Aaron - Reply to #271

i've got this really cool counter-demo!

<< Comment #290 @ 17:19 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

26671 - Reply to #271

Dude, I've got this really cool bong with this neck that winds back and forth and has some really cool colors, wanna see?

<< Comment #280 @ 06:31 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Venim

this thread was ruined by trolls who dont appear to know shit about marijuana

shame really

<< Comment #285 @ 12:17 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

mkeiy

Constant source of amusement, tourist and vedic take a bow.

<< Comment #288 @ 16:49 UTC, 8 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

guts - Reply to #285

their routine is getting old.

<< Comment #308 @ 00:01 UTC, 11 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

MUNG>esh - Reply to #288

i generally avoid 100+ post threads unless it's strictly about qlive/q3/cpma/osp. and even those of late are beyond a waste of time.

also, weed should only be used when you're coming down off harder stuff. that is all.

<< Comment #305 @ 18:37 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

griffin`

im high now.

1%

<< Comment #307 @ 20:33 UTC, 10 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ashr

legalize industrial hemp.

<< Comment #310 @ 03:18 UTC, 11 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

xero- '

fuck you niggas trying to stop the growing of my weed, i hope you die of aids

<< Comment #311 @ 14:06 UTC, 11 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

anal justice

quake is pointless without a good smoke of pot

10%

<< Comment #312 @ 17:19 UTC, 14 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

sarac

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124225891527617397.html

white house ends "war on drugs" - nice

Edited by sarac at 17:20 UTC, 14 May 2009

<< Comment #315 @ 21:19 UTC, 18 May 2009 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

darkskye

tom, i'm disappointed.

<< Comment #319 @ 10:53 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Anonymous (118.244.239.2)

Hi there, I found your web site by the use of Google while searching for a similar matter, your site came up, it seems to be good. I've bookmarked it in my google bookmarks. dcggeadcdege

<< Comment #320 @ 12:50 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Freiya

Truck kills.

<< Comment #321 @ 14:20 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Melted

Cannabis in the right low-hit dosage, is far healthier than a no-hit dosage. It's stimulating, increase vitamin levels in your system (almost equivalent to sun gazing) and introduces more elements of perspection.

Without mentioning everything positive that's happening from cannabis. Cannabis definitely represented by the common user, you could view it as stereotypical, but a judgemental foundation for your opinion, will be more damaging than the plant will ever be.

<< Comment #322 @ 20:31 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

gl00my

i have been smoking for 15 years a few grams a day and i can say now that it is a pain to quit after that long :)
Hardest thing i have ever faced (and i have faced some bad things). Cant keep up anymore tho ,not even top class shit works on me and it gets expensive so i think im out untill it gets legal (atleast for medical use).

In moderation its the best thing ever tho the hard part is to keep it moderated ;)
I belive its the future of medicin for alooot of issues.

<< Comment #323 @ 20:43 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ProT : - Reply to #322

When I smoked regularly (and I did for as long as you did, about 1, 1.5 grams per day) it was only a bit annoying on the first two or three days because the privation got me in a really bad mood. A few days after, I didn't even think about it. I always managed to keep it moderated, though.

It's one of the best anxiolytics there is for sure. :)

<< Comment #324 @ 20:53 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

gl00my - Reply to #323

We are all different i get bad bad anxiety and my body dosent work as it should for weeks :P Sweating,nightmares,aggression etc etc.

I guess i love and rely on it to much + my mental state.

Hugs bro ;)

<< Comment #325 @ 21:07 UTC, 4 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

ProT : - Reply to #324

Hugs. :)

<< Comment #326 @ 01:35 UTC, 5 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)

By

Jamerio '

Does pot kill anyone worthwhile though?

<< Comment #327 @ 03:17 UTC, 5 October 2014 >>

(Link, Reply)