In response to RaeKwon (#70)
RaeKwon wrote:
No offence, but i can tell you've never bean stoned.

It's because thats not possible.

In response to Dareb (#19)
i personally hate drugs and tobacco...

my father and a few of his brothers do weed, and they are some of the most aggressive people that i have ever met. weed will eventually make you very aggressive, and not so relaxed.

drinking is bad, but fun to watch people make total asses of themselves. its funny until they say they are gonna drive home.

In response to Zilal (#78)
He then informed me that marijuana lost its potency quickly, and was likely completely ineffective by now

I think it does lose some potency, but not to the point of complete ineffectiveness. I seem to remember reading that the active ingredient's chemical structure degrades to a less potent form over time.

and probably moldy besides.

Maybe... it might be hard to tell!
In response to Maz (#79)
Maz wrote:
1. is that an insult, youv never bean stoned?


2. can you read?

Yes, i can read. But when you get stoned(Kusanagi, thats what we call it in Canada when were ripped, buggered up, ect..), your mind runs slow. And for me, i get hyperactive.

3. meh

Meh? Is that even a word?

In response to Aidsteen (#81)
thats when you steal their keys. or worse.. pop their tires.
In response to Gughunter (#67)
Addressing the thread in general:
I agree with hemp, but not with marijuana. I hate drugs with a passion. Drugs used as medicine, sure, that's fine -- morphine, valium, lithium, etc. are all perfectly acceptable commodities when they're used as they should be. Unfortunately, people don't use them as they should be, and that just tears me up inside. As far as medicinal marijuana is concerned, I feel that there are much better alternatives; marijuana is what I lump into the category of pleasure-drugs, which basically means that I consider it a bane to society. If you can't derive satisfaction from your daily life, then change your lifestyle! Make friends, get a different job, and so on -- don't turn to a bottle or a joint, because this way leads to madness.

(I couldn't care less what people here say, marijuana is psychologically addictive. I bet that if you were a casual user and tomorrow your pot were to suddenly disappear, you'd be very irritable and would go buy more. Psychological versus physiological doesn't make a difference -- you're still addicted. People like driving fast, and people like having sex. Those are psychologically addicting too. You can fight impulses with willpower, but no one is perfect.)

As for hemp, it really is chemically inert -- according to a source whose name I can't remember, "You'd have to smoke an entire field before you would feel any effect, and by then you'd be so sick that you'd probably die."

Hemp's one of the reasons why I've been considering a vote for the Green Party in the 2003 election (I'll be of legal voting age in fifteen days). Unfortunately, their view on marijuana is what's making me consider not voting for them.
In response to Spuzzum (#85)
I bet that if you were a casual user and tomorrow your pot were to suddenly disappear, you'd be very irritable and would go buy more.

All right, let's say we accept an operational definition of "something is psychologically addictive to the extent that a person enjoys it". But you haven't yet explained why we should accept your judgment on which enjoyable things are acceptable. Heck, for all I know, you might end up making cat ownership mandatory! (And you can have my Grand Theft Auto 3 when you pry my cold, dead fingers from it...)
In response to Spuzzum (#85)
Look at the larger picture before voting on anyone or anything. dont vote one way or the other simply because you have a minor disagreement in morales, thats entirely selfish and i would be in full rights to call you immature.
In response to Gughunter (#86)
Let people make small things mandatory, good people will still do it. and they will be called criminals, so be it. Eventually things will erupt in chaos..

You have to go through hell to get to heaven..

Society must learn that the current path its taking is wrong, and it must see for itself. Nobody can just say it.

But i feel that when this chaos occurs (a revolution) the world will be better for it, not at first.. but eventually it will. Perhaps someone who truly deserves power will attain it.
In response to Dareb (#87)
If you disagree with one topic that a party has, you have every right to put them on the bottom of the list. If they wind up working their way to the top of the list again, then so be it. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a party's agenda, especially when the party is as one-track as the Green Party. I'd rather vote for a conservative bastard than someone who'd want to distribute performance-altering drugs to whoever wanted to pay for them.

I really wish there was a "Non-confidence" voting option, however. Right now, either you vote for someone who you just dislike less than everyone else, or you don't vote at all and aren't counted. If non-confidence winds up getting a majority, it would teach the parties to rethink their agendas, because the population as a whole wouldn't believe any of them are capable of running the government under their current state of mind.
In response to Spuzzum (#89)
Spuzzum wrote:
I really wish there was a "Non-confidence" voting option, however.

Just give me 30 days to spend 30 million dollars and 300 million dollars when I manage to spend it.
In response to Gughunter (#86)
By my definition, anything is acceptable if it doesn't alter your bodily functions past a certain point when you derive pleasure from it. For example, driving fast may not alter your body much, but when you crash, you burn, so it's not a good thing. Sex doesn't alter your bodily performance a whole lot, so it's acceptable (unless you get an STD, but that's unrelated to the actual act -- it's not the sex that caused the problem, it's a lack of discreteness). Therein lies a problem, too -- sex is fine when done discretely, but what about prostitution that's also done discretely? And I can admit that I don't have an answer.

Drugs alter your bodily performance, and if they are used expressly for the purpose of pleasure, rather than to correct a condition that's ailing you, then according to my utopian view they should be removed from the grand scheme of things, or restricted better to prevent non-medicinal use.

I never said I speak for everyone else -- I'm just stating my own personal opinions. I also never said that what I'm saying is possible... as far as I'm concerned, drugs will last as long as humanity does.

(Anyway, I wouldn't want your GTA3. I have my own copy. ;-))
In response to Dareb (#88)
Let people make small things mandatory, good people will still do it. and they will be called criminals, so be it.

--carefully and quietly writes "mandatory" down in her little black notepad of words that Dareb uses but doesn't understand--
In response to Spuzzum (#91)
Sex doesn't alter your bodily performance a whole lot, so it's acceptable

Heh... good thing you're going by "bodily performance" and not "errors in judgment", because I think sex and drugs might be neck-and-neck in that category...

Just FYI, I think you meant "discreet" and not "discrete". Same sound, different meanings.
In response to Gughunter (#93)
Doy... all this time I was figuring discrete and discreet were the same thing, like color and colour, which encompassed both definitions.

I suppose that explains why my old stand for my monitor was a book called Discrete Mathematics.
In response to Lesbian Assassin (#92)
sure i know what that word means..

see, watch

"while being on the forum, putting up with Lesbian Assassin's dry, dull and ill-timed jokes is mandatory"
Page: 1 2 3 4 5