|
|
|
|
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 6:27:25 AM | | I want nothing to do with drug users. I want nothing to do with a lush. I don't think weed should be legal, but even if it is still want nothing to do with it or its users. I have met too many pot heads that can barely string a sentence together. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 6:41:50 AM | | Ever notice how many people to claim to smoke weed for spiritual reasobs or meditation? Lol what a bunch of bull. People smoke it because they cannot handle life without it. There are people all over the world who are spiritual and meditate just fine without getting high. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 8:21:34 AM |
I want nothing to do with drug users. I want nothing to do with a lush. I don't think weed should be legal, but even if it is still want nothing to do with it or its users. I have met too many pot heads that can barely string a sentence together.
AND
Ever notice how many people to claim to smoke weed for spiritual reasobs or meditation? Lol what a bunch of bull. People smoke it because they cannot handle life without it. There are people all over the world who are spiritual and meditate just fine without getting high.
First off, it is against the rules to "double post". I, as a pot smoker, do not have a hard time following the rules. I might have a hard time stringing a sentence, but at least I can read them.
I have met too many pot heads that can barely string a sentence together.
People smoke it because they cannot handle life without it.
Same tired old comments, here from a page you must have missed:
Almost every single one of these names have admited to smoking cannabis.
• Abbie Hoffman
• Abraham Lincoln. On a Hohner box cover but disputed.
• Al Gore.
• Aldous Huxley
• Aleister Crowley
• Alexander Dumas
• Alice B. Toklas
• Allen Ginsberg. Poet.
• Alexis Korner. Musician.
• Andy Warhol. Artist.
• Annita Roddock. Founder 'The Body Shop'.
• Anjelica Huston. Hollywood actress. Jack Nicholson's girlfriend for 17 years. Pro-drug statements by her in Peter McWilliams book, 'Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country'.
• Arthur Conan Doyle. Author, creator 'Sherlock Holmes'.
• Aswad. Musicians.
• Beatles.
• Bill Clinton.
• Bill Gates. Not confirmed, just very strongly hinted at in the Playboy interview
• Bill Murray Arrested for possession
• Bob Denver.
• Bob Dylan. Poet, singer, song writer.
• Bob Marley. Poet, singer, song writer.
• The Bishop of Monmouth.
• Brian Eno. Singer, song writer. Signed 'Independent' list.
• Boy George.
• British Lords & MP's - too many to list .
• Buddy Rich.
• Cab Calloway. Jazz musician.
• Carl Sagan. Author.
• Caroline Coon. Artist, founder 'Release', manager of the Clash.
• Carl Segan . Author.
• Carlos Santana. Musician, guitarist.
• Carrie Fischer.
• Cary Grant.
• Cary Mullis. Nobel Laurate, Biology
• Charles Beaudelaire
• Charles****ns. Claims but no evdience.
• Cheech Marin.
• Chris Armstrong. Footballer, tested positive.
• Chris Conrad.
• Chris Farley. 60's singer.
• Chris Rock.
• Conan O'Brian.
• Count Basie. Jazz legend.
• Dame Ruth Runsiman. Author; Police Federation Report (March 2000) advising liberlization.
• Dave Gilmour . Musician ; Pink Floyd.
• Dave 'Tinki Winky' Thompson - TV personality (UK); the Tellie Tubbie that was sacked.
• Diego Rivera.
• Dion Fortune.
• Dioscorides.
• Dizzy Gillespie.
• Douglas Adams. Author.
• Dr Francis Crick. Nobel Prize winner.
• Dr Lester Grinspoon.
• Dr Mark Porter. TV doctor who says cannabis is not more harmful than alcohol.
• Dr Anne Biezanek (authoress)
• Dr R.D.Laing.
• Dr John Marks
• Dr W.B. O'Shaugnessy.
• Drew Barrymore.
• Duke Ellington.
• Eddie Ellison. Ex head of Scotland Yard Drug Squad.
• Edgar Allen Poe. Author, multi-drug user.
• Elvis Presley. Singer, FBI informer.
• Emperor Liu Chi-nu.
• Emperor Shen-Nung.
• Ernest Hemmingway. Author.
• Errol Flynn.
• Fela Kuti. Musician. Afro/jazz king.
• Felix Dennis. Publisher.
• Fitz Hugh Ludlow.
• Fran Healey. Musician; Travis.
• Francis Ford Coppella.
• Francis Rabelais.
• Francis Wilkinson. Ex Chief Constable of Gwent Police.
• Fredreich Nietzshe.
• Ganesh - Hindu God.
• Gary Johnson.
• Gene Krupa.
• George Clinton. Ex President's brother.
• George W Bush. Possibly the greatest living hypocrite.
• George Gurdjieff.
• George Melly. Jazz musician (early sponsor of Legalise Cannabis Campaign, Uk).
• George Michael. Singer.
• George Washington.
• George Soros.
• Gerard de Nerval.
• Gilberto Gil. Brazilian musical icon.
• The Greatful Dead.
• Hasan I-Sabah.
• Heinrich Khunrath.
• Helen Petrova Blavatsky.
• Henri Michaux.
• Herman Hesse.
• Hiero the Second.
• Howard Marks. Author, cannabis smuggller.
• Howard Stern, Admitted it on the radio.
• Hua T'o.
• Hunter S. Thompson. Smoked weed and snorted coke with George Bush.
• Ian Botham. Convicted Cricket legend.
• Irvine Welsh.
• Kurt Cobain.
• Jabir Ibn el-Hayyan.
• Jack Herer. Author 'The Emporor Wears No Cloths'
• Jack Kerouac. Author ' On the Road'.
• Jack Nicholson. Film actor.
• Jackie Gleason.
• Jackson Pollock.
• Jane Fonda. Actress.
• James Brown. Singer, song writer.
• Janis Joplin. Singer, song writer.
• Jesse 0Ventura.
• Jerry Lee Lewis. Musician, song writer.
• Jimmy Dorsey.
• Jimmy Hendrix. Rock guitarist, singe, song writer
• Jim Morrison. Musician, songwriter; The Doors.
• Joan of Arc. Accused of using 'witch herbs' (another name for cannabis).
• Joan Rivers.
• Joe Strummer. Musician, singer, songer writer; The Clash.
• John Belushi.
• John Denver.
• John F Kennedy. Popular US president (assassinated).
• John Keats. Poet.
• John Lennon. Musician, song writer; The Beatles.
• John Le Mesurier. Tried it but said it's not for him.
• Johnny Cash.
• John Peel. DJ, BBC broadcaster.
• John Sinclair.
• Judge John L. Kane. Chief Judge from the US District Court
• Julie Christie. Actress.
• Jules Verne.
• John Wayne. 'I tried it once but it didn't do anything to me.'
• Kelsey Grammar.
• Ken Livingston. Mayor of London - supports decriminalisation but does not smoke or support the use of recreational drugs.
• Kirk Douglas. Actor.
• Kurt Cobain.
• Larry Adler. Harmonica player and
friend of George Gershwin. May have written a song about it.
• Lenny Bruce. Comedian.
• Lewis Carroll. Author 'Alice in Wonderland'.
• Linda St Clair
• Little Richard. Musician.
• Lord Avebury.
• Lord Byron. Poet.
• Lord Deedes.
• Lord Tony Gifford. QC, civil rights lawyer.
• Louis Armstrong. 'Oh what a wonderful world'.
• Louis Hebert.
• Mark Thomas . Comedian.
• Marlon Brando. Actor.
• Martin Sheen.
• Mary Shelly. Author 'Frankinstein'.
• Mary Tyler Moore.
• Mick Jagger. Singer, song writer, The Rolling Stones.
• Michael Mansfield QC. Lawyer.
• Jade Jagger.
• JC 100. Fastest rapper in the west.
• JT Moore. Legendary white rasta guitarist.
• Mike Tyson.
• Miles Davis. Jazz/rock drummer.
• Mo Mowlan. Genuine honest politician.
• Modigliani. Sculptor.
• Montgomery Clift. Mentioned in his biography.
• Neil Diamond.
• Nick Hornby. Author.
• Niel Young. Musician.
• Norman Mailer. Author.
• Oasis. Rock band.
• Oliver Stone.
• Oscar Wilde. Poet.
• Pablo Picasso. Artist.
• Pancho Villa. Mexican bandit revolutionary.
• Paul Flynn. Uk Member of Parliament.
• Paul McCartney. Musician, song writer; The Beatles.
• Paul Simon. Musician, song writer.
• Pharoahs of Egypt. Traces in body samples.
• Phil Donohue.
• Phil Tufnell. Former test cricketer, now media celeb.
• Peter Fonda. Actor; 'Easy Rider'.
• Peter Sellers. Actor, comedian.
• Peter Tosh. Musician.
• Philip K.**** Science fiction author.
• Pierre Burton.
• Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
• Pink Floyd; Syd Barret and Roger Waters.
• Prince Charles. Heir to the Throne. Quoted while visiting a hospital; 'I understand cannabis is good for medical use' .
• Prince William.
• Prince Harry.
• Pythagoras.
• Queen Arnegunde.
• Queen Victoria. Used it for medical purposes.
• Ram Dass.
• Ray Charles. Musician.
• Rev Kenneth Leech.
• Richard Branson. 'Virgin'. Entreprenur.
• Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize Laureate physicist, founder of quantum electrodynamics.
• Richard Prior.
• Richard Wilson. Actor; 'One Foot in the Grave'.
• Rimbaud. Author.
• Robert Burns. Mentioned it in a poem.
• Robert 'King' Carter. Grower.
• Robert Anton Wilson. Author.
• Robert Mitchum. Jailed 90 days for possession of marijuana, 1949.
• Roger McGough. 60's liverpool poet.
• Rolling Stones. Rock band.
• Ronnie Scot. Jazz club owner, musician, busted on stage 1958, at his club in Soho, London.
• S Club 7. 'Super clean' pop band, busted in Soho, very embarrassing.
• Salvador Dali. Artist.
• Samuel Beckett.
• Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Poet.
• Shen Nung. One of the fathers of Chinese medicine. 2700 B.C .
• Sinead O'Connor. Singer.
• Sidi-Hidi.
• Sigmun Freud. Shrink.
• Sonny Bono.
• Super Furry Animals. Welsh band who wrote a song about Howard Marks.
• Stephen King.
• Sting/Gordon Sumners.
• Tariq Ali. Activist Writer.
• Tenessee Williams. Author.
• Terence McKenna. Author.
• Terry Gilliam. Actor, comedian;Monty Python.
• The Who. Rock band.
• Thelonius Monk.
• Thomas Jefferson.
• Timothy Leary.
• Tom Lehrer.
• Top Tories. Senior members of the shadow cabinet.
• Tony Elliot. Publisher, 'Time Out.
• Tracy Blevins. Artist.
• Tuppy Gore.
• UB40. Band.
• Victor Hugo.
• Vincent Van Gogh. Artist.
• Walt Disney. Cartoonist.
• Walter Benjamin.
• Whitney Houstonn. Busted at Hawaii airport but ran away.
• William Burroughs. Author, poet, artist.
• Will Self. Author. Did smack on Blairs plane.
• William Shakespeare. Playwright.
• William Straw. UK Home Sec Jack Straw's son. Cautioned for supplying undercover journalists in pub 'shocker'.
• Willie Nelson.
• Winston Churchill. British Prime Minister, poet, artist & multi drug user.
• Woody Harrelson. Actor. Features in a book on growing medical marijuana .
• Zoroaster. Persian prophet.
http://boards.cannabis.com/activism/72501-famous-people-smoke-weed.html
Those folks had a hard time handling life without weed? WOW could have fooled me! | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 8:37:08 AM | You actually had the audacity to give a list which contains a lot of famous people, many oh whom died of drug overdoses....
Elvis didn't smoke weed. He didn't even drink, nor did he smoke cigs. He was opposed to both. He was hooked on the prescription pills his dirty manager kept giving so he could keep raking in the millions. You made a lot of that list up even adding to then (no real proof etc) How is speculation evidence?
How the heck are you going to lecture someone about board rules when you break the law? Lol | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 8:41:45 AM |
I have met too many pot heads that can barely string a sentence together.
People smoke it because they cannot handle life without it.
When you said those things, that is what gave me the "audacity" to give that list (again).
We were not talking about overdoses, we (you) were talking about how weed smokers can't handle life. So, still sticking to that gun? (judging by the topic change, no)
Also, cherry picking ONE name out of that list is not too logical. Check wiki for the logical fallacy, called "cherry picking". What about Carl Sagan? George Washington? Abe Lincoln? They seem a bit more important than the king of rock, just my opinion of course. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 8:53:30 AM | Oh I stick that sentiment of course. The fact that you list of famous people that died of drug use helps our argument better than it does yours.
You don't have proof that half of those people smoked weed you are speculating. The lengths people go to to justify breaking laws is amusing. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 8:57:15 AM | | Apparently many have trouble with the concept of some being able to handle it safely and and without ill effect, while some others can't. It doesn't work for everyone...So? I guess in their minds it means no one should use it. Me, I can't handle caffein, like many others. Why don't we launch a campaign to close down Starbucks? | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:03:33 AM | "The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world."
- Carl Sagan quote on Marijuana
"When you return to this mundane sphere from your visionary world, you would seem to leave a Neapolitan spring for a Lapland winter - to quit paradise for earth - heaven for hell! Taste the hashish, guest of mine - taste the hashish!"
- Alexander Dumas quote on Marijuana
"We shall, by and by, want a world of hemp more for our own consumption."
- John Adams, U.S. President quote on Hemp
(Still sticking to that gun?) Did those folks die of drug overdoses? They were on the list.
Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking
So, with that quoted, how many on that list have died from drug overdoses?
TOPIC ALERT!
I think I have found a major reason for the hatred to pot!
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.
So because of these few 'bad apples' the whole bunch has been spoiled, at least in the eyes of the uneducated. (I do not mean stupid, but it is obvious when it comes to weed some of these folks know nothing.) That's fine, I know nothing about being a Christian. Though I thought you weren't supposed to judge... | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:25:51 AM | Devilsfan--
I am aware of the military policies, I was trying to make a point that if my safety and well-being are dependent upon another person (I am against mind alteration while on the job just to be clear), given an option I would choose as I stated.
It was, if you will a merging of concepts to underscore a point.
In a relationship venue, I want nothing to do with an abuser of any type.
I have yet to meet a toker who becomes beligerant, obnoxious, unable to function while they are high...can't say the same about a drinker...and it can be as few as 2 drinks to note a difference in behavior.
I would not leave a baby in the charge of somebody who is drinking, can't say the same about a toker. Get the idea now?
Spag-
Your point has been made ad nauseum. Your dogged determination to advocate is now in the realm of tedious and paints you as a fanatic. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:26:46 AM |
The fact that you list of famous people that died of drug use helps our argument better than it does yours.
It only helps if you're trying to argue that marijuana was the cause of their deaths. You're also ignoring the fact that the post was suggesting that you can live a -very- successful life while still using marijuana.
I don't use the stuff. My two main reasons being that I like to be coherent, and that it gets really expensive really fast.
Drugs won't be legalized any time soon. The government makes too much money off of it. Mike Rupert does a pretty extensive job of explaining how CIA brings in revenue via illegal drugs.
youtube.com/watch?v=4nBrgI5lFcE
youtube.com/watch?v=UT5MY3C86bk | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:36:49 AM |
Your point has been made ad nauseum...
Which point are we talking about? This current point stopped being discussed around page 8 of the thread. Now it is back, and I wonder; why have you not said the same thing to the opposing side of this point? Considering I've replied to the postings, it is safe to assume that they have brought it up EVERY time. I guess your sentence would have been better put, why do I keep defending their ad nauseam argument? (Who knows, must be the pot.)
Since this 'point' is ad nauseam, we could switch back to the topic. Why there are strong opinions regarding pot. I still say it is because of moral pushing, or is that ad nauseam too? What about personal preference? Or am I just supposed to be insulted, and do nothing?
The "issue" isn't with pot, it isn't even with a "stoner". The "issue" is in the mind of the moral pusher. They THINK it is wrong, and they have to make sure everyone knows that their OPINION is fact. Well, I can be a moral pusher too. The only difference is, I am pushing for the right to have my own morals, not to push my morals onto others. I suppose that is (ad) nauseating to some, usually the pushers.
If defending my rights/beliefs makes me a fanatic, then I suppose I should come up with a cool cult sounding name. sheesh | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 9:46:14 AM | Spagett,
I'm sure you know that there are very few here, or anywhere for that matter, who know enough about logic and argument to realize that you can only argue facts and not opinions...it's very sad. It carries on to many other areas in life and is the source of much tiresome banter. So...here we are yet again. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 10:00:44 AM | weeds illegal, full stop.
that said, whens the last time u heard of a violent,abusive smoker? moderation. i dont smoke but one strain, which is the bomb! gateway? alcohol and cigarettes are gateway drugs. beer lobbies and religious politicians brainwash the public. ganja is proven as medicinal. alcohol is proven as worthless. pot is natural,unadulterated goodness. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 10:07:55 AM | Hey Rick...I've got a dime of good, B.C. rasta bud if you can say liberal without immediately blurting out "NAZI" like you have tourrettes or something...LOL!
Seriously though...comparing liberal thinking to Nazi thinking is as much as stretch as comparing pot to real drugs that are processed and simply chemicals specifically designed to enslave the user... | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 10:23:50 AM | hey man...I don't like the fact that a woman can choose to abort a child I sired regardless of my wishes either, but I do agree with the notion that like it or not, it is her body and therefore her choice. We could always outlaw it again but women who want an abortion will find one, whether in a proper clinic like we have today...or in some alley with a coat hanger. Which do you prefer given those two choices???
And Hitler killed based on ethnicity alone...not on the complicated issue of whether he was reasonably able to shoulder the responsibility of a child or not...so again...as ugly as we may think abortion is...Nazi's were and are far worse and therefore not comparable in any way to the Liberal or Moderate movement in N.A. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 1:07:30 PM | Spag-
Your point, to keep it as basic as possible, as I see it, is that you are a staunch supoorter of hemp. You do alot of reading/research on the issues surrounding hemp.
Your interest in hemp is well documented here.
I have no issue with that.
It is your approach to paste endless lists and lengthy supportive facts. If you were to post the url's or links to the sites you reference your material from as a source for those who wish to delve deeper and sum up the paragraph after paragraph rather than to post a dissertation piece by piece, to avoid a sense of being lectured by you.
Fanatic has a negative connotation, it is extremist, evokes extreme reaction and ultimately makes it difficult to take you seriously.
If you find that complimentary, power to you.
A deotee however, does not have such negative impact.
It's a fine distinction but an important one.
So, by taking your chosen tack, your overall impact ultimately becomes negative...is that really an effective means to getting your point across? | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 1:16:06 PM |
It is your approach to paste endless lists and lengthy supportive facts. If you were to post the url's or links to the sites you reference...
I have posted a URL each time. And, being an avid debator, I tend to quote directly. More often than not, the other side in arguments such as these will not click a link. Not to mention you can not paste clickable links, and not everyone knows of cut-and-paste.
Anyway, to summarize: You are upset because I back up my claims with evidence? Apparently it was not enough, since some folks still rally behind the lies.
Fanatic has a negative connotation, it is extremist, evokes extreme reaction and ultimately makes it difficult to take you seriously.
If you find that complimentary, power to you.
Ah, so you were insulting me then? Why do you feel the need to stoop to insults, is that easier than providing "ad nauseam" sources/quotes?
Anyways, still have not refuted the topic (which is being expertly avoided at this point.) This boils down to personal preference and moral pushing. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 1:25:38 PM | | As the OP of this thread I too have noted Spagett's style of discourse. It feels to me the thing he's attempting to demonstrate is something like a "preponderance of evidence"to bolster his position and with it, sort of steam roller over the "opposition". Yes, perhaps it's a bit heavy handed, but I feel he does make his points. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 4:17:12 PM | Spag-
...to summarize: You are upset because I back up my claims with evidence?
Your reading comprehension skills are now suspect after that response.
And given that you like to "quote directly" and make the assertion that you are an "avid debater", your debating skills are also now suspect. Debaters don't directly quote pages of material.
I said that you post quoted material ad nauseum, which is defined as "to an excessive degree".
BTW- ad nauseum is an ADVERB, my usage cannot be legitimately faulted. Can't say the same about your usage and perversion of the word(s).
Anyway,to back that up with JUST ONE EXAMPLE on THIS page it is a list with your header:
Almost every single one of these names have admited to smoking cannabis.
AND, not only did you post it here, it is a repost from a previous page. You could have supplied the msg #. You chose not to.
It takes up about 1/4 of the page.
Therefore my comment regarding TEDIOUS and criticism of quoting ad nauseum.
I didn't call you a fanatic, I said your APPROACH paints you as fanatical.
Your post in reply included:
If defending my rights/beliefs makes me a fanatic, then I suppose I should come up with a cool cult sounding name.
By your chosen tack, coupled with making this statement, you put on the mantle of fanatic.
Then you went further by cherrypicking my statement to quote:
Fanatic has a negative connotation, it is extremist, evokes extreme reaction and ultimately makes it difficult to take you seriously.
If you find that complimentary, power to you.
You further responded with:
"Ah, so you were insulting me then? Why do you feel the need to stoop to insults, is that easier than providing "ad nauseam" sources/quotes?"
I was not stooping nor insulting you, I was pointing out that your approach leans towards camp fanatic. And, I am not the one providing "ad nauseum" sources and quotes. The direct quoting is your easy way out, relying one somebody elses verbage as opposed to making the effort to digest the info and restate it--which is the skill of a true debater.
As far as accomodating those who don't know how to copy and paste, that is akin to the volumes of governmental paperwork now disseminated, indiscriminantly I might add, in several languages.
If somebody does not know how to copy and paste a url, if they can find their way here to forums, certainly they can google "how to copy and paste". If they don't have intelligence to do that, then all of what you post is lost on them anyhow. So that argument is weak at best. A clickable link does not need to be copied and pasted.
I think you like to hear yourself talk and talk and talk and talk...
You choose to ignore or your reading comprehension skills are so poor that an attempt to influence a shift in your tack from negative impact to one that would advance your position, more positively was dismissed.
If you had read and grasped what I stated, you would have understood that I was trying to help you ultimately by drawing your attention to the negative impact you create. Ever hear of constructive criticism?
As far as the topic, I am on record here for being 420 tolerant.
I can't refute (prove wrong with fact or evidence) somebody's OPINION.
I addressed the it's illegal, a gateway drug and moral pushing arguments in msg 119...neatly, rationally and concisely. The gauntlet was thrown down and I took on the challenge in my reply (msg 119). Reread my final sentence in that post...the query is still valid and has yet to be answered 9 pages later (see msg 163). For grins, look at msg 185 about the reference to Gen 1:12 and the argument against that as well.
This argument with you has now reached the point of tedious. At least I will name it and claim it, unlike others.
Sadly, it has become an argument or debate if you prefer, because you are so focused on the fight you are blinded to who supports your position and has offered insight to present with a more positive impact.
You want to fight with me Mr? You better come better equipped.
I say it again and again, but it bears repeating-
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see and none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.
Do I hear an AMEN bothers and sisters?
Damassteel--
...but I feel he does make his points.
Tediously...and that is part of my point and why I called him on it and tried to draw his attention to fanatic vs devotee connotations.
and asked him if it was an effective approach to getting his point across. A question he not so "expertly avoided". | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 4:32:07 PM | it's really very simple why dope should not be legalized.
America is at a crossroads in our history. we may be about to go under and become bankrupt and the Chi-Comms come out on top.
America needs CLEAR THINKERS. we need a citizenry that taxes the revenue resources of this country least. we need smart people to do what they can to strengthen America.
dope smoking weakens America and turns it citizens into stoned out wastoids causing innumeral amounts of trouble. recently we had a young black man shot to death here in Youngstown simply because a pot sale went wrong.
America doesn't need ANOTHER legal vice that transforms law abiding people into twilight zone freaks and brain addled zombies. dope is also a gateway drug to even more harmful chemicals.
buying, selling, procuring, growing and using illegal dope weed can cause you to lose your job, your freedom and your children.
it's illegal and most Americans want it to remain illegal. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 4:57:37 PM | Wow! Are you trying to sound "smarter" than I? It sure smells that way from the post(s).
For the record:
Posts with a quoted source:
79, 81, 125, 135, 145, 150, 176, 203, 206, 214, 220, 364, 369
Posts without a quoted source:
88, 102, 104, 109, 111, 113, 116, 122, 153, 156, 159, 199, 204, 213, 229, 231, 233, 238, 248, 251, 255, 262, 276, 283, 333, 349, 366, 373, 380
What were you saying about my excessive quoting? Looks to me like you might want to re-read the thread.
Also:
Then you went further by cherrypicking my statement to quote:
Fanatic has a negative connotation, it is extremist, evokes extreme reaction and ultimately makes it difficult to take you seriously.
If you find that complimentary, power to you...
Cherry picking? First you say:
Spag-
Your point has been made ad nauseum. Your dogged determination to advocate is now in the realm of tedious and paints you as a fanatic.
Then you say:
Fanatic has a negative connotation, it is extremist, evokes extreme reaction and ultimately makes it difficult to take you seriously.
If you find that complimentary, power to you.
Let's look at that. You call me a fanatic, then you go on to explain that fanatic is bad. How is that NOT insulting me?
I notice you didn't get grumpy until my Christian comment. Is that what riled you up? And your fallacious argument about me "quoting too much" is foolhardy, at best. Just read the beginning of this post, proof is in the posts.
Tediously...and that is part of my point and why I called him on it and tried to draw his attention to fanatic vs devotee connotations.
Please stop hijacking this thread, you have admitted to it here. The thread is about strong opinions on pot usage etc, not about me nor my supposed faults.
I still find it amusing the one with the truth is the one chastised. The people that spout the same thing OVER and OVER, well that's okay if it isn't factual. If they are allowed to post the same ignorance, I am allowed to post the same facts. If you dislike it, then don't read my posts...hmm moral pushing again...sigh. (At least it proves my point.)
I don't like his posts, they are wrong. He NEEDs to stop posting what I don't like! | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/24/2009 6:46:54 PM | People maintain strong opinions on smoking pot simply because an opinion is something that can't be taken away from you nor proven as wrong.
In real estate, it's location, location, location.
In restaurants it's presentation, presentation, presentation.
In an argument aimed at changing an opinion, a key element is presentation.
Presentation of facts may cause a person to reconsider their position IF presented in a palatable manner.
Has anybody here reconsidered their original stance, changed their opinion and why? | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/25/2009 5:59:44 AM | Where to start...
I used to smoke pot, and for me and many others it was a gateway to other, harder drugs. I'm certainly not saying that just because one smokes weed they are bound to do cocaine or heroin; not at all, but I'll bet that most people who do cocaine or heroin started out smoking pot. Much like the majority of "can't go a day without drinking" alcoholics probably started out being classified more as a "social" drinker, not everyone who is a social drinker goes on to become a drink every day alcoholic. I have no doubt that the well spoken pro-pot folks who have posted on this thread will not go on to become cocaine or heroin addicts, though to think that every single person who ever starts with smoking pot will not is naive.
I used to be a rampant defender of my own personal drug use, even in the days when it was only pot. In hindsight, 20 years later, I can easily identify that I was addicted. I used to break into cars in parking lots, stealing anything of value that could easily be sold or traded, and I used to shoplift from stores. Eventually the drugs became more important to me than my job, so I just stopped going to work. I ended up being homeless shortly thereafter and my life continued on a downward spiral for a couple of years. Things didn't get better for me until I got off drugs and made a concerted effort to turn my life around. 20 years later there are very few people, maybe 4 or 5, that even have an inkling of those days, and none that know how bad it really became.
The pro-pot lobby has a ton of links they like to throw around. They run the gamut from good science to propaganda. All the links in the world however don't change my own personal experience, and the experience that others have had. With Russian roulette, odds are you aren't going to blow your head off if you try it just once. Same thing with pot, odds are you aren't going to become an addicted, homeless criminal if you try it. But why take the chance with either? Even if pot is a gateway drug for only 1 in 10,000, in my opinion that's 1 too many (and I would argue the chances are greater than 1 in 10,000, not based on research and scientific studies, but based on personal experience and what I have seen in my own life).
Today, every single day of my life I'm happy to be where I am. Yes, the majority of my income every month goes to my ex-wife and her child, but all in all that's a small price to pay considering where I was 20+ years ago. Yes, it may be raining today, but at least I have a roof over my head to keep me dry. Yes, I may be 10 or 15 pounds heavier than I'd like to be, but at least I don't have to break into a store in the middle of the night to steal a loaf of bread. Pot for a lot of people will cause none of the problems that I went through. For some however, they won't be as lucky as I was to make it through the other side of addiction, and some won't even make it through the next day/month/year. The pot defenders will hold pot free of blame from my problems and nothing I can say or do will change that opinion. I'm certainly not naive enough to think that it will, after all I was on that side of the fence once myself and nobody could ever convince me that I was wrong. From my own personal experience though, I can clearly identify where it all started to go wrong. Again, not to say it goes that way for everyone, but it sure did for me. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/25/2009 9:14:57 AM | Van, while I'm glad you're happy where you're at, I think that to suggest that pot specifically was a gateway to harder substances for you is a bit misguided.
If you drank alcohol, which is a much "harder" substance than pot, I'd suggest that it was more likely the gateway and not pot. Pot heads don't steal for pot as pot is not physically addictive, however people with psychological issues who are using whatever coping mechanism they can find, including pot, do steal from cars.
and people can knock Spag all they want for his methods, his facts are accurate and to be honest, his fighting fire with the same fire approach is often the only way to get through the mountain of misinformation that has been built up about pot. | |
|
| Strong opinions on pot smoking here and abouts; why?
Posted: 11/25/2009 10:13:42 AM | Alright, if marijuana is a gateway drug then from now on I will be calling beer by its true name.
Beer is a gateway drink! Everyone who drinks beer will most likely move on to harder, more dangerous, boozes! Worse than that is wine! Wine might lead to beer, which as we all know leads to harder drinks! Rally with me fellow pushers, let's stamp out this devils liquid once and for all!
There you have it, the NEW gateway.
Weed is a gateway drug! Everyone who smokes weed will most likely move on to harder, more dangerous, drugs! Worse than that is smoking! Cigarettes might lead to weed, which as we all know leads to harder drugs! Rally with me fellow pushers, let's stamp out this devils smoke once and for all!
/sarcasm
No one is denying that a small fraction of folks can not handle addictive substances. Of course, many more folks are addicted to...let's say...food for instance. They just can't put down that fork, much like the smokers who can't put down a joint.
Now, does that mean everyone who eats is addicted to food? Does it mean that anyone who eats...let's say...candy is going to move on to harder, more sugary/fatty foods? Or does this all boil down to personal preference?
If you can't handle an addictive substance, that is your issue. Punishing others because you can't control yourself, well that is moral pushing at its finest.
For the record: Not one quote. | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
