Marijuana

[Hydra Alpharius]

Quote:

Bullshit.

Cars are a LUXURY, and nothing more.

You don't NEED a car. I have friends that don't own cars, and they get around just fine. It's called "Walking". It's much more healthy, too!

So, no, cars are not "a necessity", no mater how much we pretend they are.

Oh I guess they are definitely not necessary since Mr. Jim "I broke my legs" Assley needs to get to the hospital and the only way to get there is by walking... oh wait he cant walk because his legs are broken!


Yes walking is much much more healthy, but in cases of getting to places faster (like work) driving a car is WAY better.

Quote:

Uh, no, I've debunked everything you've thrown at me.

You've quote unquote "debunked them" with your very own opinions. Nothing except for the medical FACTS (which I have yet to see any be brought up in the entirety of this conversation) would prove me wrong, but hey guess what? I agree with MEDICAL use of Marijuana oh so fully.

Quote:

Physically, no. But it sure can eat you, metaphorically.

I tell you what. Go, and get yourself about $10,000 in credit card debt. Then, try to get yourself out of it. You'll see, that bills CAN be a ********, and people have committed suicide to escape it.

That sounds more like a personal problem than anything else. I dont have debt because I spend my money wisely and avoid using credit or debit cards.

Quote:

I won't deny that. When I can't wish someone a "Merry Christmas", for fear of offending them, then there's no question to it.

True.

Quote:

Well, it has given us the ability to be lazy, but we're the ones who actually EMPLOY such sloth.

How so?

Quote:

Cigarettes aren't really a big problem, that I know of. Sure, bootlegging, and all of that, but really, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that people will still go to jail for selling illegal goods.

Quote:

You're the one making it seem like you do. Not us.

Uh no. I dont.

I havent said "Oh I hate your opinions and I hate you!!!" have I now?

Quote:

Oh, those. I do that as a sort of sarcastic condescension. It helps show off the illogicality of the point I'm making fun of.

The illogicality of a point you dont agree with because it doesnt match your opinion....

Quote:

Nope, pressed for time to get out the door.

Now I would't know that would I?

Quote:

What "could be", isn't worth worrying about. If we worried about what "could be", then we wouldn't be messing with the Supercollider, because it "could" destroy the earth.

We are messing with the Supercollider because we want to know what will happen when we mess with it.

Sitting at home baking is more akin to not messing with the super collider.
Why because instead of going outside and interacting with people, the choice is made to sit and bake.

Quote:

Never assume such things about people. Least of all, about someone like me.

Hmm I guess.

Quote:

Me, probably not. But not everyone is so kind. That's why, when someone IS so kind, they get praised. Because they were so unselfish, which is not so common as you seem to think.

Have you ever had the situation actually infront of you? You would be surprised at how people actually react to different stimuli.

Quote:

What if I don't think it's worth knowing?

That would be a personal choice but in my opinion a lack of curiosity.

Quote:

And drugs have nothing to do with that.

Uh yeah they do. Cocaine? Addicts that are crazy.
Meth? Deaths
Marijuana? Stupidity.

Quote:

Uh, no. People get into drugs for plenty of reasons, with "my parents drove me to drugs" not being a common one.

Bad parenting as in the parents never being around or just not saying: "Jimmy let me tell you about (insert drug here) and what it does to a person and how its bad."

Thats bad parenting because if the parents never told them about how bad drugs where then they would never know would they?

Quote:

But some people do. Your opinion holds no baring on them.

In that combination? Doubt it.

Quote:

Who needs an excuse? If you don't want to do something, who cares?

Uh I believe thats being a lazy ******** class="quote">

Quote:

It is. But it's still my problem, and proof that just because YOU can always find something to do, doesn't mean EVERYONE can.

[Hydra Alpharius]

Quote:

So you're saying that a folding stock lets you put it in a smaller place? Sounds a lot like what I said.

Try to aim a folded-stock rifle. Shooting from the hip is really damn hard, and holding the thing up in front of your face to use the sights gets you popped in the nose.

Uh no. You said it allows you to put it into storage. I said its easier for it to be concealed.

Besides you dont have to look down a sight to hit someone, especially in close quarters.

And yes I have and I have had no problems. Once again it depends on the users strength.

Quote:

Dunno. Because there's no such thing as new marksmen, and only criminals have no experience shooting? Only outlaws want to be accurate when shooting a gun?

Uh there is. Believe it not, some people have an hand for shooting rifles and pistols. Its as if its in their genes.

Who says criminals have no experience shooting? They could have been in the military for all you know or perhaps they practice some where else.

Quote:

Read that again. No, the M203 has been banned since 1986. It wasn't included in the ban because it was ALREADY banned. Yeah, you can still buy them. They're a couple thousand bucks. The ammo for them is about $300 a round too, because not only are they rare, each and every round is an NFA Class III weapon (destructive device) and requires a $200 tax stamp and a signature to transfer [sell] it.

Also, no. Rifle grenades are rare as ********. It's hard to find an INERT grenade. You'll never find a live one in the US. And even if you DID find one, it'd be the same DD, $200 tax to buy it.

Sarcasm is sarcasm.

Oh well then thats a problem for you.

Quote:

And they've never been used in a crime. Never. So why ban them? They just make rifles look cooler with a bayonet attached.

And you said it. If you REALLY wanted to bayonet someone, you'd just tape a knife to your gun.

Because they can potentially be used in a crime and they are made for the purpose of stabbing people.

Knives can be used for anything so you couldnt ban them.

Quote:

Cho, the guy who shot up Virginia Tech, reloaded SEVENTEEN TIMES, and witnesses at the scene saw him reloading INDIVIDUAL BULLETS into the magazines because they were empty. eBay records show he purchased his magazines there. eBay still abides by the assault weapons ban and won't allow the sale of any parts which would make a normal weapon an 'assault weapon'. This means all but the magazine the gun came with were 10-round 'standard capacity' magazines. Still, nobody stopped him. You think things would have changed at all if he'd been forced to reload only 9 times?

He still would have killed people yes but at a faster rate.

Quote:

Also false. Those high-caps are friggin' long (8.5"), and they don't fit quite right in a mag holster. Makes you look like your hips are happy to see four different people at once.

ROFL

Yes they are long, but theres no reason why you cant have a tac-vest on your body and keep them there. Some tactical vests are designed to carry hi-caps.

Quote:

Or a hunter, or a target shooter, or someone in home defense. There's a million reasons why you shouldn't be blind after taking a shot. There are very few reasons why you should. Why would anyone WANT to be blind after shooting? It's happened to me, it wasn't fun at all.

Then they should wear flash reducing glasses. They make them. Regardless though it does seem kind of silly.

Quote:

Nice duck. Try logic this time.

Duck? No I just dont know how your corrupt government works because I dont live where you do.
You wouldnt want me to start saying things that I dont fully know about now would you?

Quote:

Bit late on that one.

Because I support others rights to smoke. I support equal rights for gays and women, but I don't like the d**k. I support the right to drink alcohol, yet I'm a teetotaler. I support the right to sell yourself on the street, but I'm neither a hooker nor a john. I support others' rights to do many things I'd never do myself.

So basically you care for others lives then? I do the same only the opposite.I wish to see them better themselves.

Quote:

Guess that's a no.

Now tell me, why do you feel the need to be a grade-A jackass to everyone? Is it some macho thing? Do you win all your debates by pissing off the other debaters until they all ragequit?

Not at all actually since Im not being a d**k at all. Infact you and the others have responded back with insults and the such that to me, seem so hilarious. You guys get worked up for nothing at all and its the funniest thing ever.  

[black_wing_angel]

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

Bullshit.

Cars are a LUXURY, and nothing more.

You don't NEED a car. I have friends that don't own cars, and they get around just fine. It's called "Walking". It's much more healthy, too!

So, no, cars are not "a necessity", no mater how much we pretend they are.

Oh I guess they are definitely not necessary since Mr. Jim "I broke my legs" Assley needs to get to the hospital and the only way to get there is by walking... oh wait he cant walk because his legs are broken!

Ambulance. Problem solved.

Quote:

Yes walking is much much more healthy, but in cases of getting to places faster (like work) driving a car is WAY better.

"Better", but not "necessary". Luxuries tend to be "better" than the lack of them, but they are never necessary.

Quote:

Quote:

Uh, no, I've debunked everything you've thrown at me.

You've quote unquote "debunked them" with your very own opinions. Nothing except for the medical FACTS (which I have yet to see any be brought up in the entirety of this conversation) would prove me wrong, but hey guess what? I agree with MEDICAL use of Marijuana oh so fully.

You can't debunk an opinion with a fact, because opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

Quote:

Quote:

Physically, no. But it sure can eat you, metaphorically.

I tell you what. Go, and get yourself about $10,000 in credit card debt. Then, try to get yourself out of it. You'll see, that bills CAN be a ********, and people have committed suicide to escape it.

That sounds more like a personal problem than anything else.

Well, yeah. It's only going to affect the person with the problem.

But this whole thread is ABOUT a "personal problem".

Quote:

I dont have debt because I spend my money wisely and avoid using credit or debit cards.

Bravo. Not my point, however.

Quote:

Quote:

I won't deny that. When I can't wish someone a "Merry Christmas", for fear of offending them, then there's no question to it.

True.

Quote:

Well, it has given us the ability to be lazy, but we're the ones who actually EMPLOY such sloth.

How so?

Ok, well, I could go out and walk to work. It's only a mile. However, I continue to employ my motor vehicle to get there. That's my employment of the sloth that technology has granted me.

Quote:

Quote:

Cigarettes aren't really a big problem, that I know of. Sure, bootlegging, and all of that, but really, what's the big deal?

The big deal is that people will still go to jail for selling illegal goods.

And that's THEIR OWN STUPID FAULT, since they COULD acquire them legally.

You can't worry about every single person alive. Work for the common good. Make it legal to obtain the merchandise, and then let THEM worry about employing such a legal tactic.

Otherwise, are we to ban any expensive (but not necessary) goods, for fear that someone who can't afford them, might steal them?

No, you just say "tough s**t" to the people who do.



Once again, I must cut and run. And I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.  

[Hydra Alpharius]

Quote:

Ambulance. Problem solved.

Uh thats still an automotive. And it still makes carbon emissions. So its necessary.

Cars are needed because you need to get to work on time right? And not sweaty as hell right?

Quote:

"Better", but not "necessary". Luxuries tend to be "better" than the lack of them, but they are never necessary.

Necessary if you want to get to work on time.
Necessary if your traveling great distances.
Necessary if you have an emergency where the Ambulance can't get to your house on time.

There are plenty of reasons why autos are necessary.

Quote:

You can't debunk an opinion with a fact, because opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

And so far you have only given me your opinion on the matter. Thats it.

Quote:

Well, yeah. It's only going to affect the person with the problem.

But this whole thread is ABOUT a "personal problem".

No its about legalizing an illegal substance, not about curing ones personal problems.

Quote:

Ok, well, I could go out and walk to work. It's only a mile. However, I continue to employ my motor vehicle to get there. That's my employment of the sloth that technology has granted me.

Thats your own way of doing it and thats your own situation. There are people out there that have jobs that are miles away so they have no choice but to keep driving.

Quote:

And that's THEIR OWN STUPID FAULT, since they COULD acquire them legally.

You can't worry about every single person alive. Work for the common good. Make it legal to obtain the merchandise, and then let THEM worry about employing such a legal tactic.

Otherwise, are we to ban any expensive (but not necessary) goods, for fear that someone who can't afford them, might steal them?

No, you just say "tough s**t" to the people who do.



Once again, I must cut and run. And I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.

The common good would be to just not do it at all but then again thats my own opinion.

But sure let it be legal and see what happens, and you'll see that it wont be as glamorous as you make it to be.

Have fun slothing to your work.  

[magmayoshi]

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

Damn you beat me to it. And if you live in any size city you are breathing a low amount of exhaust as you step outside. Marijuana smokers are too few to create smog. As long as smoking marijuana is restricted like it's more destructive friend cigarettes you'll only get the rare whiff from the odd user standing too close to a building entrance [and you'll still inhale it less often than cigarette smoke or car exaust].

Okay heres something for you to munch on.

If weed becomes legal, the government would take a hold on all of the weed transaction throughout the country and only the government and a select amount of business corporations would be able to sell it. Since they can officially control the price of weed, they can choose to make it cost as much as they want to make it cost (I.E. tax the hell out of it like cigarettes.) So then people would see it as unfair and start making illegal dealings in which the Government and the Companies that own the products would respond with arrests on selling "bootlegged" products and more people would be in jail, because when it comes from taking possible money from the Gov and the companies, they will come down on a person like no other force imaginable.

Unrealistic speculation.

It would be more open than that since the base formula is just the plant. They may be able to copyright a strain they modified but not the plant itself. So unless you are stealing their seeds, growing your own would likely be legal to remove drug cartel influence further.

Anyways why should we care if people illegally buy easily laced versions of the same plant or grow their own? Majority wouldn't care about taxation and buy it with markup since it guarantees the plant has no lacing (unless the package specifies) or no effort (versus growing). And even with the odd arrests there would still be fewer in jail because you can't just arrest anyone you find it on with it legalised.

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

Ambulance. Problem solved.

Uh thats still an automotive. And it still makes carbon emissions. So its necessary.

Cars are needed because you need to get to work on time right? And not sweaty as hell right?

Quote:

"Better", but not "necessary". Luxuries tend to be "better" than the lack of them, but they are never necessary.

Necessary if you want to get to work on time.

Nope, you just leave sooner, work less and/or move.


I drive to school and get there on time each day.
My friend bikes to school and arrives on time each day.

The difference?

Me - 5 kilometers away, flat
Friend - Really ******** far and up a mountain.

Hydra Alpharius

Necessary if your traveling great distances.

Bike/horse/walking, takes a while but you'll get there.

Hydra Alpharius

Necessary if you have an emergency where the Ambulance can't get to your house on time.

The person dies. Population is an issue now so the Earth goes, "Yay."
They should have not been doing whatever it is that they were doing, have been more careful doing it, learned how to do basic treatment for common injuries or just tough s**t.

Hydra Alpharius

There are plenty of reasons why autos are necessary.

None of which you stated.  

[magmayoshi]

Fresnel

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

You're again assuming I smoke, which I have told you I don't. My point here is that if we hold it, shut up, and take it, THEY WILL NEVER MAKE IT LEGAL. If nobody complains about anything, nothing gets changed.

Wait a minute. If you dont do it then why do you care then?

Bit late on that one.

Because I support others rights to smoke. I support equal rights for gays and women, but I don't like the d**k. I support the right to drink alcohol, yet I'm a teetotaler. I support the right to sell yourself on the street, but I'm neither a hooker nor a john. I support others' rights to do many things I'd never do myself.

You know what's fun? Confused looks of suspicion or just confusion when people find out you support things you personally don't believe/partake in, such as when he asked why you care. ninja  

[Kats Scratches]

magmayoshi

Fresnel

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

You're again assuming I smoke, which I have told you I don't. My point here is that if we hold it, shut up, and take it, THEY WILL NEVER MAKE IT LEGAL. If nobody complains about anything, nothing gets changed.

Wait a minute. If you dont do it then why do you care then?

Bit late on that one.

Because I support others rights to smoke. I support equal rights for gays and women, but I don't like the d**k. I support the right to drink alcohol, yet I'm a teetotaler. I support the right to sell yourself on the street, but I'm neither a hooker nor a john. I support others' rights to do many things I'd never do myself.

You know what's fun? Confused looks of suspicion or just confusion when people find out you support things you personally don't believe/partake in, such as when he asked why you care. ninja

And if I say to you that I wanted to, know that I lied

There's a couple of drugs that are completely harmless, like wormwood in alcohols. As long as the alcohol is had responsibly, the drug really doesn't damage the users system.

So it's really wanky that governments put restrictions on things that essentially do no harm to the body, when things that do harm to the body are let fly.

Amsterdam has the right idea.

You could be right

 

[black_wing_angel]

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

Ambulance. Problem solved.

Uh thats still an automotive. And it still makes carbon emissions. So its necessary.

But YOU don't have to own it. Even if it's still an automotive, by using IT, instead of your own car, then you're reducing emissions. Besides that, even without ambulances, if we really HAD to get you to the hospital really fast, because you're just SOOOOO important, that your death is not acceptable, then there's always the old fashioned horse and buggy. Sure, not as "efficient" as an automotive, but it works in a pinch.

Quote:

Cars are needed because you need to get to work on time right? And not sweaty as hell right?

People did just fine before cars were invented, didn't they?

They are not necessary, because you can always use a horse, or your own feet. The only reason it SEEMS like a necessity, is because, in today's world, we over abuse them, too much. It's ok if you live 12 miles away from where you work, because that's only a 15 minute drive! However, before the car became what it is today, people rode horses to work, or just walked. And they didn't get jobs that were more than a couple of miles from home.

It is possible to survive without a car, so it is not a necessity. OXYGEN is a necessity. A car, is not. No matter how much you make yourself rely on one, you can survive without it.

Quote:

Quote:

"Better", but not "necessary". Luxuries tend to be "better" than the lack of them, but they are never necessary.

Necessary if you want to get to work on time.

Live closer, and leave earlier. Problem solved.

Quote:

Necessary if your traveling great distances.

And do you actually NEED to travel great distances, or is that another thing you WANT to do, but don't NEED to do?

Yes, I'm going to be taking a 300 mile trip to see my aunt and uncle, next week. But make no mistake, I don't HAVE to do it. I WANT to do it.

Quote:

Necessary if you have an emergency where the Ambulance can't get to your house on time.

Your survival is not a necessity (except to yourself). You could die tomorrow, and the world would keep on spinning. Your longevity is pure luxury.

Besides, you have to die someday, right?

Quote:

Quote:

There are plenty of reasons why autos are necessary convenient.

Fixed.

Quote:

Quote:

You can't debunk an opinion with a fact, because opinions are opinions and facts are facts.

And so far you have only given me your opinion on the matter. Thats it.

Indeed. And you've done absolutely no better.

Quote:

Quote:

Well, yeah. It's only going to affect the person with the problem.

But this whole thread is ABOUT a "personal problem".

No its about legalizing an illegal substance, not about curing ones personal problems.

Having to worry about being arrested for enjoying a substance you wish to indulge in, would be a personal problem, wouldn't it?

Quote:

Quote:

Ok, well, I could go out and walk to work. It's only a mile. However, I continue to employ my motor vehicle to get there. That's my employment of the sloth that technology has granted me.

Thats your own way of doing it and thats your own situation. There are people out there that have jobs that are miles away so they have no choice but to keep driving.

They could always move closer. Or get a job that's closer to them. Being able to get to work in a decent span of time, from where they currently live, is simply more convenient.

Quote:

Quote:

And that's THEIR OWN STUPID FAULT, since they COULD acquire them legally.

You can't worry about every single person alive. Work for the common good. Make it legal to obtain the merchandise, and then let THEM worry about employing such a legal tactic.

Otherwise, are we to ban any expensive (but not necessary) goods, for fear that someone who can't afford them, might steal them?

No, you just say "tough s**t" to the people who do.

Once again, I must cut and run. And I'll address the rest of your post tomorrow.

The common good would be to just not do it at all but then again thats my own opinion.

And your opinion is, as best I can tell, in minority. There are more people that I know, who beg for legalization, than who actively PUSH for the status quo.

Quote:

But sure let it be legal and see what happens, and you'll see that it wont be as glamorous as you make it to be.

No, it won't be "glamorous", but it won't be the dark age that you predict, either.

Quote:

Have fun slothing to your work.

Oh, I did. I slothed to work at 35 to 60 mph, blaring Rammstein through my 10 inch subwoofers kept in my trunk, and my Sony Xplode CD player, because I can afford such awesome luxuries. But I CERTAINLY don't need them.

 

[black_wing_angel]

Quote:

Quote:

Oh, those. I do that as a sort of sarcastic condescension. It helps show off the illogicality of the point I'm making fun of.

The illogicality of a point you dont agree with because it doesnt match your opinion....

Yes. And by doing the "lolcats" thing, it helps make my opponent's opinion look foolish.

Mind you, I only use it when I deem it acceptable to do so. I do not abuse it.

Quote:

Quote:

Nope, pressed for time to get out the door.

Now I would't know that would I?

That's why I explained it to you, isn't it?

Quote:

Quote:

What "could be", isn't worth worrying about. If we worried about what "could be", then we wouldn't be messing with the Supercollider, because it "could" destroy the earth.

We are messing with the Supercollider because we want to know what will happen when we mess with it.

Despite what "could" happen. We are not worrying about the "possibilities", we're doing it, anyway. So, obviously, a lot of IMPORTANT people, follow my logic.

Quote:

Quote:

Sitting at home baking is more akin to not messing with the super collider.

Uh, depending on the argument in question.

Quote:

Why because instead of going outside and interacting with people, the choice is made to sit and bake.

And, as an individual with rights, that decision is yours to make.

We all make decisions, and bare the consequences of them.

Quote:

Quote:

Me, probably not. But not everyone is so kind. That's why, when someone IS so kind, they get praised. Because they were so unselfish, which is not so common as you seem to think.

Have you ever had the situation actually infront of you? You would be surprised at how people actually react to different stimuli.

No, I really wouldn't be surprised, because I already know how different peoples' reactions may be.

You seemed to allude, however, to the idea that everyone acts as a hero. But this is not so common, actually. I grant you the Virginia Tech massacre. No one, NOT ONE ******** PERSON, dared to confront the killer. The victims ran for safety, and the cops stayed outside. Your argument is one that says that every one of those victims, as well as every one of those cops, would've charged him. But NO ONE did.

So, no, not everyone is a hero in waiting.

Quote:

Quote:

What if I don't think it's worth knowing?

That would be a personal choice but in my opinion a lack of curiosity.

And there's some sort of problem with having a lack of curiosity?

Curiosity is not always a great thing. If I was curious as to what bleach tastes like, I likely wouldn't be here today, would I?

Quote:

Quote:

And drugs have nothing to do with that.

Uh yeah they do. Cocaine? Addicts that are crazy.
Meth? Deaths
Marijuana? Stupidity.

Ok, I forgot what we were arguing about in this part.

Quote:

Quote:

Uh, no. People get into drugs for plenty of reasons, with "my parents drove me to drugs" not being a common one.

Bad parenting as in the parents never being around or just not saying: "Jimmy let me tell you about (insert drug here) and what it does to a person and how its bad."

Thats bad parenting because if the parents never told them about how bad drugs where then they would never know would they?

I agree. But you can tell a kid JUST how bad it is, and that might not stop them. My parents told me ALLLLLLLLLLL about how bad smoking tobacco is, and I've had a few cigars in my day.

Actually, a lot of the time, the "rebel" factor kicks in, and people do EXACTLY what they're told not to do.

This is ESPECIALLY true with kids. That's why "reverse psychology" works so well.

Quote:

Quote:

But some people do. Your opinion holds no baring on them.

In that combination? Doubt it.

I don't.

Quote:

Quote:

Who needs an excuse? If you don't want to do something, who cares?

Uh I believe thats being a lazy ******** class="clear">

Which, as Americans, we have our right to be. You don't like it, that's obvious, but then, who the ******** are you?

Quote:

Quote:

It is. But it's still my problem, and proof that just because YOU can always find something to do, doesn't mean EVERYONE can.

So I suppose you must live on fugging bizarro, except instead of everything being backwards, there is nothing to do.

No, I live in micro city in Missouri. If you're interested in consuming alcohol, gambling, or are a tourist who's "sight seeing", then there's not a lot for you in this place.

Yes, TOURISTS love this place, but once you've lived in this town ALL YOUR LIFE, and have seen all the sights 20 times, they're not so appealing, anymore.

Quote:

Quote:

Even in the most utter and dark depths of BFE there is always something to do.

Sure, but the question is, what if I just don't want to do those things? What if I'd just rather get blitzed? That's my business, and not yours.

Well then your wasting your time (in my opinion)

And I give a ******** about your opinion on the matter, why, exactly?

Quote:

Quote:

And they disagree.

And they only disagree because they are told that its okay to have a bad morality

Who the ******** are YOU to judge their morality? Morality is subjective, you know. Just because YOU find it bad, doesn't MAKE it bad.

Quote:

and that its okay to do drugs and waste their life away, and its okay to be a follower and not a leader.

Time enjoyed is never time wasted.

And who are they following? They just don't want to go outside, and would rather sit and get wasted. It's not like someone told them "Eh, ******** it, you should just get sloshed!" They are following THEIR OWN desire to sit and get sloshed.

Quote:

Quote:

And none of those reasons actually demonize the substance. If people want to do it, they will do it, and you shouldn't be allowed to stop them, just because you don't like it.

I don't like abortion, but I won't tell a woman she has no right to kill her child, which holds no effect on my life, just because I'm not fond of the practice.

Uh yeah it does. It demonizes it in the way of individuality. It demonizes it in the health.

Why do you cling to this impression that anyone who is fond of doing drugs, is "just following the leader"? People do it FOR THEIR OWN ******** REASONS! That's actually VERY individual. It's all of the people who say "NUU! DRUGZ IZ BAADD CUZ DA LAW SEZ SOW!!" that are "following the leader" and refusing to be individual.

So, congratulations, you're a walking contradiction!

Quote:

Quote:

Nature made us to be healthy and strong, but nature also makes us weak and frail. Diseases are natural, after all.

And who honestly gives a ******** what "nature" wants for us? If it was left to "nature", you wouldn't have the computer you're using to read this. If it was left to nature, you wouldn't have a car.

Basically, "nature" can go to hell.

We are humanity. We DEFY nature.

Quote:

Sounds arrogant. REALLY ARROGANT.

But true, just the same.

Quote:

I guess when a tornado tears through a town and kills a whole bunch of people than we sure as hell did a good job at defying it.

Hey, you can't completely defeat nature. We never will advance that far. However, we've come to the point where we can manipulate the elements of nature. We can CREATE and manipulate fire, at will. We can force the power of electricity to bend to our will, and we can even CREATE WIND! (Fans)

Hell, we've pushed back the laws of death! Once upon a time, if your heart stopped, that was it, game over. Now, even if your heart stops, you still have a chance. And we've beaten diseases that were once LETHAL.

NO OTHER ANIMAL ON EARTH, has ever been as advanced as we are, today. None have ever given nature the middle finger, as well as we have.

Sure, every now and then, nature kicks our a**, but we've kicked hers, many times over.

Quote:

Quote:

Theres a difference between respecting nature and making technology.

Except that a lot of our technology actually RAPES nature.

That car you drive, destroys her air. The plastic found in practically everything you own? Non biodegradable.

Quote:

Quote:

As do I, sometimes. But it's not impossible to see through the bullshit, to the real you. I've done so with other people, several times.

Right. Go ahead and try it out. You come to find that your above sentence, only works on a few people.

It works on a lot more than a few people. Though, yes, there are exceptions, they are VERY much, the minority.

Quote:

And it doesn't cross your mind that "biased bullshit" is a possibility here?

Could be. Could be not. Its starting to be proven true the more and more I read articles on the internet.

Who really knows.

No one. And we probably never will, to be honest.

Quote:

Quote:

What they do with their own bodies, does not concern you. If they don't want to better themselves, that's none of your ******** business.

So, yes, it IS a crime, in the form of infringement of the right to bodily domain.

Excuse me for being a caring human being that only wishes to see the people around him prosper.

You can "wish" all the ******** you want. But you do not have the right to refuse someone else their sense of enjoyment, because you don't like what it does to them.

As long as they are hurting no one but themselves, then it's none of your business, and you "caring" about them, just makes you look like a self-righteous a*****e.

Quote:

A crime, once again, IN YOUR OPINION.

Actually, constitutionally, it really is one.

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, I find it to be a rather GOOD attitude. Why worry about other people, if they aren't going to worry about themselves? Why should I care what happens to someone who holds no impact on my life?

I find that, when you keep to yourself, and only worry about yourself, and the things that affect you, you live a much happier life, than when you go around complaining about the way other people live.

"OMG! YEW SHUDUNT SMOAK! U IZ GONNA DIEZ!!!"

Does that person give a ********? Probably not. So why should I? It's their funeral, not mine.

When you mind your own, you don't piss off others, and you live a happier life.

Once again excuse me for being a caring human being that only wishses to see less graves in the ground.

You're not seeing "less" graves in the ground. You're only postponing how long it takes for those graves to appear. In the end, we all still die. So what if a few people would rather choose their method of death? If they want to die of cancer, that's their business.

Quote:

Humans were made to rely on other humans, so is what Im trying to do bad?

Yes it is. There are more than enough people here for you to rely on, without having to worry about each little person who puts a joint to their lips.

Hell, we're OVER populated, as it is.

Quote:

Quote:

But what's the point? If people don't want to be saved, they why bother trying?

Because its called "caring for your fellow homo sapien."

Also known as "being a self-righteous jackass". There's nothing to gain from worrying about people who's lives do not impact you, except a sense of "I'M BEING A GOOD PERSON! TEE-HEE-HEE!".

Some people don't WANT you to care for them.

Quote:

Quote:

But we haven't, have we? So there's a MUCH bigger problem than stoners staying home and getting blitzed.

Actually, by staying home, those stoners are doing a FAVOR to America, by not wasting oil, and not polluting the enviornment!

LE GASP! You're right! There is WAY bigger problems than people being able to smoke up freely! Yet the debate continues onward about why they should be able to smoke up freely, instead of actually caring about the other things.

"Interest" is not proportionate to "Importance". A world leader died, around the same time Britney Spears lost what little bit of a ******** mind she ever had. Which is actually "more important" to the world? And which one gained more "interest"?

I can tell you, I never heard a lot of people talking about that world leader, but everywhere I went, "OMG! BRITNEY SHAVED HER HEAD!!!"

So, there ya go.

Quote:

As opposed to going in the streets and protesting child slavery, or being pro or con for abortion? That does not make sense. Basically your saying its okay for them to be worthless.

Because it is. If they want to be worthless, that's their decision, and I respect their right to it.

Quote:

Quote:

Not as fast as we take it away, though.

I hope you know that they have special wood farms were they just use that wood for manufacturing and production...

And yet, they're still tearing down the forests, aren't they?

Quote:

Quote:

They took the risk, they knew what could happen.

Besides, if marijuana were LEGAL, they wouldn't HAVE to worry about a botched drug deal, they could get their joints at the local 7/11. Problem solved.

Uh no they didnt. Sometimes you never know what could happen.

But you know that something bad IS LIKELY to happen, don't you?

However, if a transaction at a gas station goes awry, that's a lot more surprising, isn't it?

Quote:

Yeah because they can march right up to seven eleven and buy it for an overpriced amount? Oh no! They cant afford that! They need to get their fix cheaper and then that leads back to illegal drug deals.

If they can't afford it, then they shouldn't have it. Recreational drugs are a luxury. You can survive without them. So, if you can't afford the prices set by the government, then you don't get the product. Unless you're willing to take the risk on an illegal deal, which is YOUR problem.

Let's say I want a brand new car. I can't afford it, so I now have 2 options:

1) buy something I CAN afford

2) get a "new" car on the black market (the equivilent of buying black market drugs)

If I go with option 2, and get arrested, who's fault is that?

Luxuries are for people who can afford them.

Oh, and at least with government regulated prices, there is a REGULATED price. Currently, you never know what the dealer will charge you. He may charge you $30, or $50, or MORE, depending on how bad you want it, and how much he feels like raping your wallet.

The government can set a price for the product, that you can't be "raped" by. It's a set price. It's not going to be $30 for your first hit, and then when you come back as an addict, suddenly the price goes up, because they know how bad you want it. Dealers DO do that to people.

Quote:

Quote:

That's where YOU live. In America, our lawmakers like to do what you've been doing, and try to force their opinionated beliefs on the masses. Case in point, the whole "Gay Marriage" thing.

I haven't been doing that. Ive been giving my opinion and only my OPINION on the matter. You are the one thats trying to "out maneuver" me with your very own opinions and shove what you think into my mind.

You ACTIVELY SAID that you'd rather there be NO recreational drugs available to anyone. You did not mention "but I respect peoples' rights to make their own choices".

Quote:

Quote:

Who gives a ******** what they don't like?

Nobody does, but they certainly do. And since they do they will handle it accordingly.

And we will oppose them.

Quote:

Quote:

I never said they wouldn't. But they wouldn't be making so much money, so they wouldn't be so well supported.

How would you know? People find ways to make money off of the things they sell the most.

Because, logically speaking, that's ONE LESS product they can sell. TECHNICALLY, that is LOST PROFIT.

It's basic ******** economics!

The less product you have to sell, the less money you can make.

Quote:

Quote:

And remind me, who's problem is that? Theirs, or mine?

Apparently not, but you are the one thats trying to say that you can just get it at 7/11 for nothing so I guess it is your problem since your proposing it.

No, I'm supporting their right to deal with their problem. It's still not my problem, because I'm not affected by it, either way.

Quote:

Quote:

Their problem. If they feel its worth the risk, then what the ******** ever floats their boat. It's no skin off my nose, now is it?

Read my above post.

Read my above rebuttal.

Quote:

Quote:

It's not as hard as you think, when you've had 5 years of experience.

No, it's not perfectly accurate, but it's not completely inaccurate, either.

5 years? LE GASP you must be master internetz!
It only works on some people.

It works on a lot more people than you'd believe.

And yes, I am an internet master.

Quote:

Quote:

I agree. But if you're going to break the law, you might as well do it right.

What works sometimes might not work all the time.

Very true. However, it has better odds than a clearly visible van that might as well have "SUSPCIOUS ACTIVITY OVER HERE!" written on it.

The less visible you are, the better your success rate.

Quote:

Quote:

No. They aren't. There will still people going to jail in association to marijuana, such as driving while high, and so on, but there won't be AS MANY, because there won't be people going to jail for simple possession of marijuana, which is what most of the arrests are for.

You'll never fully eradicate criminality of ANY sort. You can only hope to reduce it. And banning a substance, is NOT going to reduce it.

True, but when it comes to Marijuana: why do it at all?

Because they ******** want to. The reason they want to, is irrelevant.

Quote:

Quote:

Hey, people are going to do that, regardless. Why bother worrying about those people?

But at least if weed were LEGAL, people WOULD HAVE A BETTER OPTION.

No, not everyone, as not everyone would be able to afford it, but at least LESS people would have to go the "illegal" route, right?

You know why a lot of cigarette smokers don't get arrested for buying cigarettes? Because they don't buy them from bootleggers. Marijuana would be the same. Some people will buy illegally, but the overall majority will still buy legally. Crime goes down. Mission accomplished.

Checkmate.

Less? Probably more since you have an economic recession going on.

The recession aside. And I doubt the recession would affect it that much. A pack of cigarettes are about $3 here. I can't imagine marijuana being much more expensive than that. Plus, marijuana isn't chemically addictive, so if money is REALLY tight, you COULD just do without, until you can afford more.

Although, yes, there WILL be idiots. There will ALWAYS be idiots.

Quote:

Realize that cigarette smoking has gone down since its now
way to expensive to buy. The same can and will happen to marijuana. Crime goes up since people need it and need it cheap.

They NEED (in their own mind) cigarettes, due to chemical addiction to nicotine. Marijuana lacks any chemically addictive properties. There will be no "need" of any kind, for marijuana, only "strong desire".

Quote:

And no not check mate because this isnt a game of chess.

Wow, you really think so? It's an expression used metaphorically to express the fact that, as best I can tell, I have you in a situation where you can not possibly win. At least, you haven't been doing too good a job, as of yet.

Quote:

Its more like an internet game of Battleship except instead of me and you having all the ships, we each just have the two-point hole ship. You know... the patrol ship? And to make things better were both just saying "R-7" over and over again.

I don't believe battleship supports an "R" category. Maybe "A7" would be a better expression.

[Fresnel]

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

So you're saying that a folding stock lets you put it in a smaller place? Sounds a lot like what I said.

Try to aim a folded-stock rifle. Shooting from the hip is really damn hard, and holding the thing up in front of your face to use the sights gets you popped in the nose.

Uh no. You said it allows you to put it into storage. I said its easier for it to be concealed.

Besides you dont have to look down a sight to hit someone, especially in close quarters.

And yes I have and I have had no problems. Once again it depends on the users strength.

I've tried shooting from the hip at 50 feet. I've never once hit the target. Despite the fact that perhaps you could shoot the rifle like that, why would you ever WANT to? It offers absolutely no advantages.

Oh, and I should mention that the AR-style collapsible stock was covered under that ban. The reason it collapses is to adjust for different sizes of shooter, not for storage or concealment. If you wanted a short one, the A1 stock is readily available and cheaper than a collapsible (though they look funny and more or less prevent you from letting a friend comfortably shoot your rifle). Or you could just take the whole thing off and leave the buffer tube, though that would force you to fire it from the hip.

Quote:

Quote:

Dunno. Because there's no such thing as new marksmen, and only criminals have no experience shooting? Only outlaws want to be accurate when shooting a gun?

Uh there is. Believe it not, some people have an hand for shooting rifles and pistols. Its as if its in their genes.

Who says criminals have no experience shooting? They could have been in the military for all you know or perhaps they practice some where else.

Exactly. So why should we make rifles harder to aim?

Quote:

Quote:

Read that again. No, the M203 has been banned since 1986. It wasn't included in the ban because it was ALREADY banned. Yeah, you can still buy them. They're a couple thousand bucks. The ammo for them is about $300 a round too, because not only are they rare, each and every round is an NFA Class III weapon (destructive device) and requires a $200 tax stamp and a signature to transfer [sell] it.

Also, no. Rifle grenades are rare as ********. It's hard to find an INERT grenade. You'll never find a live one in the US. And even if you DID find one, it'd be the same DD, $200 tax to buy it.

Sarcasm is sarcasm.

Oh well then thats a problem for you.

Exactly again. So why ban something that has absolutely no use in killing? Many surplus rifles from the 40's and 50's had these attachments on them, and now we're not allowed to own them anymore, because they also have a bayonet lug on them. Funny thing to find on an old military weapon, huh?

Quote:

Quote:

And they've never been used in a crime. Never. So why ban them? They just make rifles look cooler with a bayonet attached.

And you said it. If you REALLY wanted to bayonet someone, you'd just tape a knife to your gun.

Because they can potentially be used in a crime and they are made for the purpose of stabbing people.

Knives can be used for anything so you couldnt ban them.

I could potentially stab someone to death with my c**k, it doesn't mean you should ban it. The last recorded bayonet kill in the US Military was VIETNAM. If ANYONE was going to stab a b***h with a mounted bayonet it'd be the military, but even they can't find a place to do it. And it should be noted that they didn't ban bayonets, only bayonet LUGS. You could still mount the bayonet over your barrel and tape it in place. There are plenty of things which could 'potentially' be used to kill someone. Car collisions take 33% more lives every year than guns, but they're not banned. Many crimes are perpetrated with baseball bats. I have a friend who was crippled with a crowbar, and once her store was held up with a screwdriver. Trotsky was killed with a mountaineering axe. None of these things are even vaguely regulated (except cars, but that's thin regulation), yet they're quite commonly used in crime.

And yet Britain is trying. What's the length limit on a knife there, 4"?

Quote:

Quote:

Cho, the guy who shot up Virginia Tech, reloaded SEVENTEEN TIMES, and witnesses at the scene saw him reloading INDIVIDUAL BULLETS into the magazines because they were empty. eBay records show he purchased his magazines there. eBay still abides by the assault weapons ban and won't allow the sale of any parts which would make a normal weapon an 'assault weapon'. This means all but the magazine the gun came with were 10-round 'standard capacity' magazines. Still, nobody stopped him. You think things would have changed at all if he'd been forced to reload only 9 times?

He still would have killed people yes but at a faster rate.

Whether it took ten seconds or two weeks, the death count is the same. He killed people until he ran out of bullets. Doesn't matter how many rounds fit in his magazines, he emptied the BOXES before he finished. If he'd bought more bullets he probably would have used them.

Quote:

Also false. Those high-caps are friggin' long (8.5"), and they don't fit quite right in a mag holster. Makes you look like your hips are happy to see four different people at once.

ROFL

Yes they are long, but theres no reason why you cant have a tac-vest on your body and keep them there. Some tactical vests are designed to carry hi-caps. High cap RIFLE mags. It should be noted though that "high cap" mags are what generally come with an AR. If you've ever put a 10-round ('standard capacity') magazine into an AR, it nearly disappears into the rifle. It's obvious that the rifle was never meant to take a magazine that small. It was built around a 30-round magazine. I challenge you to find me a tactical vest that is built to take a 33-round Glock magazine.

Not to mention that tactical vests are rather conspicuous.

Quote:

Quote:

Or a hunter, or a target shooter, or someone in home defense. There's a million reasons why you shouldn't be blind after taking a shot. There are very few reasons why you should. Why would anyone WANT to be blind after shooting? It's happened to me, it wasn't fun at all.

Then they should wear flash reducing glasses. They make them. Regardless though it does seem kind of silly.

Why not just use a flash hider? It does the same thing, but without the silly glasses.

Quote:

Quote:

Nice duck. Try logic this time.

Duck? No I just dont know how your corrupt government works because I dont live where you do.
You wouldnt want me to start saying things that I dont fully know about now would you?

I know you're not American, you've said so previously. It doesn't change the fact that you ducked logic with a 'witty' retort about Obama.

Quote:

Quote:

Bit late on that one.

Because I support others rights to smoke. I support equal rights for gays and women, but I don't like the d**k. I support the right to drink alcohol, yet I'm a teetotaler. I support the right to sell yourself on the street, but I'm neither a hooker nor a john. I support others' rights to do many things I'd never do myself.

So basically you care for others lives then? I do the same only the opposite.I wish to see them better themselves.

I like to think that people know what's best for themselves. And assuming I'm wrong and nobody closer to them than I tells them what they're doing is ******** retarded (or they do and said retard ignores them) they deserve what they get. I grew up in the school of hard knocks and it worked rather well for me.

In a more specific view though, I see no reason why pot should be banned and other, far more harmful drugs should be legal and glamorized. I mean, have you ever read a Playboy? Check out the cigarette and alcohol ads in there. I mean DAMN.

Quote:

Quote:

Guess that's a no.

Now tell me, why do you feel the need to be a grade-A jackass to everyone? Is it some macho thing? Do you win all your debates by pissing off the other debaters until they all ragequit?

Not at all actually since Im not being a d**k at all. Infact you and the others have responded back with insults and the such that to me, seem so hilarious. You guys get worked up for nothing at all and its the funniest thing ever.

You may not think you're being a d**k, but everyone else here seems to agree with me that you're acting like a condescending a*****e. So please, for the sake of civility, knock it off. It's extremely annoying.  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

Because I support others rights to smoke. I support equal rights for gays and women, but I don't like the d**k. I support the right to drink alcohol, yet I'm a teetotaler. I support the right to sell yourself on the street, but I'm neither a hooker nor a john. I support others' rights to do many things I'd never do myself.

And I, am very much the same way. I figure "Just because I would never do that, doesn't mean no one else should have the right to."

I would never date a woman who'd be willing to commit abortion, but I don't oppose women having the right to. I just won't be slipping my d**k into those women.

Quote:

I like to think that people know what's best for themselves.

I agree. And if they DON'T, well, then who's problem is that?

Quote:

And assuming I'm wrong and nobody closer to them than I tells them what they're doing is ******** retarded (or they do and said retard ignores them) they deserve what they get. I grew up in the school of hard knocks and it worked rather well for me.

Ah yes, the School of Hard Knocks. I attended that school, myself, and graduated with a ******** 4.0!

Quote:

In a more specific view though, I see no reason why pot should be banned and other, far more harmful drugs should be legal and glamorized. I mean, have you ever read a Playboy? Check out the cigarette and alcohol ads in there. I mean DAMN.

Indeed. Playboy ads tend to paint the image that "A cool, sophisticated individual enjoys Camels"

Which is fine, it's an adult magazine. But still, the product is ******** LETHALLY ADDICTIVE, and they glamorize it. And practically harmless little "Mary Jane" is treated like the black ******** plague.

This is nothing more than the product of ignorance and idiocy, working hand in hand.  

[black_wing_angel]

magmayoshi

Fresnel

Hydra Alpharius

Quote:

You're again assuming I smoke, which I have told you I don't. My point here is that if we hold it, shut up, and take it, THEY WILL NEVER MAKE IT LEGAL. If nobody complains about anything, nothing gets changed.

Wait a minute. If you dont do it then why do you care then?

Bit late on that one.

Because I support others rights to smoke. I support equal rights for gays and women, but I don't like the d**k. I support the right to drink alcohol, yet I'm a teetotaler. I support the right to sell yourself on the street, but I'm neither a hooker nor a john. I support others' rights to do many things I'd never do myself.

You know what's fun? Confused looks of suspicion or just confusion when people find out you support things you personally don't believe/partake in, such as when he asked why you care. ninja

Yeah, something about me being a man with long hair, and an avid supporter of legalization of marijuana, people are often "deer in the headlights" shocked to find I've never even TRIED it, personally.

Part of why that is, is because, despite my fondness for alcohol, I DESPISE being "intoxicated". That feeling you get when you're either "high" or "drunk", displeases me. I honestly can't understand how ANYONE can actually ENJOY that sensation.

That's why, although I am a CELEBRATED fan of alcohol, I never drink in excess, and I am a "Smart" drinker. I employ tactics that help one not get intoxicated. Such things as:

Smart Drinking Guidelines

- Eat before you drink. Food in your stomach helps slow down the absorption rate, effectively allowing you to drink more, without getting drunk

- Keep hydrated. A glass of water, when you start to "feel it", will help the feeling go away faster, allowing you to start "drinking" again, in less time, without intoxicating yourself.

-SLOW THE ******** DOWN! Don't drink too fast. Nice and slow, savor the drink, avoid the sickness.

I've been drunk once in my life, and I have no intention of repeating that mistake. No, I didn't get sick. I've never thrown up as a result of alcohol consumption. But it still sucked, royally. stare

I simply can't imagine being "high" being much more preferable than being drunk.

Also, I don't know, I've just never been interested in pot. I respect others' decision to be, but it's just not for me.  

[Fresnel]

black_wing_angel

Quote:

I like to think that people know what's best for themselves.

I agree. And if they DON'T, well, then who's problem is that?

Quite so. Darwinism in action. And also, who are the lawmakers to tell me what I should do to myself? They don't know me. They don't know anyone who knows me. How could they possibly know whether I can use something like pot responsibly or not? If it was a factor of 'your actions affect others' I could understand it, but marijuana has no greater effect on others than tobacco or automobile use or even the methane emissions from taking a s**t, and I'd bet it's actually LESS harmful than those things. God knows I've gotten my share of second-hand smoke just walking around.

Quote:

Quote:

In a more specific view though, I see no reason why pot should be banned and other, far more harmful drugs should be legal and glamorized. I mean, have you ever read a Playboy? Check out the cigarette and alcohol ads in there. I mean DAMN.

Indeed. Playboy ads tend to paint the image that "A cool, sophisticated individual enjoys Camels"

Which is fine, it's an adult magazine. But still, the product is ******** LETHALLY ADDICTIVE, and they glamorize it. And practically harmless little "Mary Jane" is treated like the black ******** plague.

This is nothing more than the product of ignorance and idiocy, working hand in hand.

Beyond playboys even. Nearly every 'gritty' movie character EVER has had a smoke at least once in their movie. But the only movies with pot are either 'stoner comedies' or movies so dark that they might as well be shooting up heroin in a filthy public restroom.  

[Fresnel]

black_wing_angel

Quote:

Quote:

What "could be", isn't worth worrying about. If we worried about what "could be", then we wouldn't be messing with the Supercollider, because it "could" destroy the earth.

We are messing with the Supercollider because we want to know what will happen when we mess with it.

Despite what "could" happen. We are not worrying about the "possibilities", we're doing it, anyway. So, obviously, a lot of IMPORTANT people, follow my logic.

I'd just like to say that the whole 'LHC will destroy the earth' thing was impossible, and obviously created by someone who has little or no knowledge of astrophysics. When an object turns into a black hole, its mass does not actually change, only its volume and therefore density. As its mass doesn't change, neither does its inherent gravitational pull. If our sun magically poof'd and turned into a black hole, the planets' orbits wouldn't change at all. The same thing would happen at a subatomic level.

Also, about the whole 'cars are a necessity' debate that I can't find any more, I'd like to point out an article I read just five minutes ago about that Scottish lady who won "Britain's Got Talent" for singing. Says she lives in the same house she was born in. The pub is two buildings down. The post office is another house down from that. The Catholic church is across from the post office. She's never owned a car, never had a computer, and she's always, ALWAYS walked wherever she has to go. No, cars are not a necessity. You don't HAVE to live far from your job. You don't HAVE to travel much at all. You could just as easily own a corner store and live in the loft above it. Many people live just like that.  

[black_wing_angel]

Fresnel

black_wing_angel

Quote:

I like to think that people know what's best for themselves.

I agree. And if they DON'T, well, then who's problem is that?

Quite so. Darwinism in action. And also, who are the lawmakers to tell me what I should do to myself? They don't know me. They don't know anyone who knows me. How could they possibly know whether I can use something like pot responsibly or not? If it was a factor of 'your actions affect others' I could understand it, but marijuana has no greater effect on others than tobacco or automobile use, and I'd bet it's actually LESS harmful than those things. God knows I've gotten my share of second-hand smoke just walking around.

Quote:

Quote:

In a more specific view though, I see no reason why pot should be banned and other, far more harmful drugs should be legal and glamorized. I mean, have you ever read a Playboy? Check out the cigarette and alcohol ads in there. I mean DAMN.

Indeed. Playboy ads tend to paint the image that "A cool, sophisticated individual enjoys Camels"

Which is fine, it's an adult magazine. But still, the product is ******** LETHALLY ADDICTIVE, and they glamorize it. And practically harmless little "Mary Jane" is treated like the black ******** plague.

This is nothing more than the product of ignorance and idiocy, working hand in hand.

Beyond playboys even. Nearly every 'gritty' movie character EVER has had a smoke at least once in their movie. But the only movies with pot are either 'stoner comedies' or movies so dark that they might as well be shooting up heroin in a filthy public restroom.

Too ******** true.

The "media" likes to reinforce the stereotype that all stoners are lazy ******** with no job, or money. Well, I've worked the same job for 2 years straight now. I've seen many people come and go, and a surprising number of them, are KNOWN stoners. And yet, only a few of them, were ever what I'd call "lazy". Hell, one of them has been there longer than me, and works CIRCLES around other people! And yes, he loves to go home and puff the ganga.

Stoners are FAAAAAAAAAAAR from the stereotype, a lot of times.

And of course, the "cigarette = badass" thing doesn't help the "DUN SMOAK!" campaign, since the media ALSO glamorizes the bad-a**.

You show me a man who pulls up on a Harley, with a Camel in his mouth, no helmet on his head, and decked in leather and denim, and I'll show you a man who women swoon over, and men fantasize about being. And it's just not complete without the 'rette.

Although, I have nothing against smokers. Hell, I'm one of VERY FEW people I know that isn't a habitual smoker. And even I've puffed on a few cigars, in my time, just because I decided to try it out once, and found that it doesn't quite "suck", but isn't something I can see myself obsessing over, either.