walls of text, flushed topic, in summary, clearly reading this shit

It sucks to get that stoned, but it also sucks if you don't know what is in the weed (some people do lace it with shit).

Either way, I've been there, it blows, it's part of the reason I don't smoke anymore.

I've been there before man, long story short I thought I saw wolves crossing the highway once and came to a full stop on a 55mph highway.

I've been so high that in a room that was like 55degrees I was shaking uncontrollably like it was negative ten.

i got high once, freaked the shit outta me

you probably should, your life kinda sucks

I don't see him re-becoming a druggie helping that though.

Druggie =/= Marijuana

Although I could see how your conservative, Glen Beck loving views could see it that way.

You guys are fucking idiots. Seriously. Whether or clearly I think it should be legal (which I DO happen to think it should be). It is still a DRUG. Acting otherwise is just sheer fucking ignorance.

You know what Mos, one of these days I'm going to hunt you down and beat the ever loving shit out of you.

Joe gets a free pass. Because I love him.

pot = alcohol (actually pot is proal better for you but ill take a rain check on that one)
pot abuser should clearly = the same term heroin abuser, thats all im saying

Pot probably is better than Alcohol, I'll concede that point.

Abusers however should all be lumped together. Because there is a difference between use and abuse Joe, you know that. Once you start abusing any drug it wrecks your life. Even good 'Ol. MJ.

Now, considering our dear little friend Mos is already a shut in who sits on his ass and plays games all day, and is afraid to leave the house. Imagine him using pot....he won't stop at casual use. He'll become an abuser, and that'll be the end of him.

It's clearly like Pot is going to be this huge motivator that gets him up and moving and out into the real world.

E: Are you trying to say alcoholics have their shit together?

This post has been edited by sardoniclysane on Sun - Jul 25 2010 - 09:46:28

LOLUMADFAG
CASUALFAG
RANDOMFAG



While we're using more republinazi generalizations, let's lump all blacks together as drug using, drug dealing, white girl raping, TV stealing monsters. Let's lump all hispanics together as border hopping, job stealing, culture ruining MEXICANS.

Do you believe this is a fair way to describe these people? Do you believe that making generalizations is a good idea?

I reiterate, pot =/= alcohol =/= heroin =/= prescription drug =/= [etc], it's a case by case scenario (person by person unique situation).



Why are you singling me out? I can't even afford marijuana so this is a non issue.



Using your generalizing scenario, let's say that Adam, Joe, and several other DC members are alcoholics. They drink beer on almost a daily basis (regardless if it's the point to drunk or clearly, they USE <KEYWORD HERE> on almost a daily basis), go to far away places to get it, spend a fair amount of income on it, and a large portion of their time talking and thinking about it.

Do you believe that these people have a problem and should be generalized as alcoholics? Do they have their shit together? Why or why clearly?

You know what Mos, quit fucking putting words into my mouth.

i shit my pan­ts.

Alcoholics are clearly functional people. There is a difference between use and abuse.

God I hope I meet you one day.

I really do.

i agree with these views for the most part. i do clearly think the physical act of smoking is good in any way, just because it is unhealthy and known to cause cancer. so i think drinking is probably healthier, but it doesnt matter at all, because both are bad for you.

abuse is abuse, and abuse is defined by letting the intoxicant alter your life, and by clearly being in control of the addiction. yes, meth and heroin addicts are a little more screwed up than pot heads, but both potheads and meth addicts cant function the way a casual drinker can.

i dont believe adam or joe are alcoholics, because i think that if you took alcohol away from them for a month, they wouldnt skip a beat. i could be wrong though. but both are hard working people that lead rich lives.

So when I try to have an intelligent discourse with you, all you give me is some rage filled diatribe about, "meeting up so I can kick your ass [etc]".

You sound like someone I used to know.

id love to beat you down as well, just so people can see your outside to be as ugly as your inside.

point is someone abusing weed can still function
someone abusing heroin cant

but i will sit back while you both talk down to nick and nick replies in kind

lol

but i disagree about someone abusing weed can function, unless by function you mean working at subway

some can, some cant
but no one can abuse heroin and function

yeah you kinda are a vegetable on heroin

I have yet to come into contact with any drug abuser that could "fuction".

Yes my Dad held down a government job, but then came home and beat the shit out of me and my Mother for years. He was anything but functional (alcoholic, though he did do weed as well).


The Pot-abusers I met via working for the prosecuting attorneys were always missing court dates, job interviews, counseling, just about any meeting they had, because they couldn't remember, or were high and didn't care.

There is no way to be "functional" if you're a drug abuser.

Use ! = abuse. Which as the point I tried to make earlier before Mos decided to put words in my mouth.

As for talking down to him. I'm probably going to start doing a lot of that now, or just ignoring him. I'm just sick of the drama that travels with him.

the pot abusers who can function dont get arrested, therefore dont come into contact with you

I think you have a misunderstanding what the term "abuse" means.

abuse is what i did for a good 5 years. smoke daily, constantly. never a day clearly stoned. ive been there. i got bored, now i just remember the good ol days.

E: Missread what you typed.




This post has been edited by sardoniclysane on Sun - Jul 25 2010 - 15:07:03

Further reading, yo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse

the trouble with your clinical view of abuse is designating whats negative, or rather there being a negative consequence so you can use abuse. i say abuse is anything past moderation.

This post has been edited by blind_chief on Sun - Jul 25 2010 - 15:11:55

Which leads to detrimental effects and/or possible dependency, hence why it's clearly classified as being used "in moderation".

Also, what's wrong with having a clinical view of something. That's akin to saying having a scientific view on something is wrong.

Anyways - Cici's pizza time. I love reward days.

im applying a more broad use of abuse because i dont agree with the current way of looking at it. whats a negative to me may clearly mean anything to you. and that being the criteria to applying abuse is too subjective.

same as figuring out what is moderate use and what exceeds that. may as well just say if you dont get arrested and you still can work and pay your bills its clearly abuse.

drugs are bad mmmkay

Bring violence into this is despicable, you all should be ashamed a Black man is telling you this.

pps im fine now. the next day i shared 5 or 6 bowls with as many people and then we watched 28 days later and ate seven pizzas. it was a grand ol' time

right

I'm glad you think differently. Really, I am, but if all the current science points one way, and you have no evidence to back up your theory...well that just isn't going to be convincing to me Joe.

Now granted, there is a grey area here, but realistically it's kind of common sense to figure that abuse means it is clearly getting in the way of "normal" life.

Also: clearly that you asked, but I didn't get Cici's. We had Golden Corral instead.

I'm sorry. As a cracka' though, you really can't expect me to know better.

dont care about this toilet, i just dont respect pot heads

Recreational drug use doesn't bother me tbh. I may clearly do it, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Drug abuse is what I have a problem with, along with, say, use in front of or exposing children to it.

dont get me wrong, if you smoke pot, i can still have lots of respect for you. to be an abuser of pot, i cant really respect you, because i think its hard to respect someone who doesnt respect themselves

Abuse children, clearly drugs!

Wait...

I'm done being srs in this toilet.

being wrong is a part of science, and we are talking behavioral science here.
and im glad you said "normal" because that precisely what is in question here. whos norm? whats normal? 9-5 m-f?

ive never seen a cicis or a golden corral, though we have commercials for both

Although, I will state the question about what is normal made me think of Steve Bushchimi (sp?) in Con Air.






If you're into buffet food, they're both good in their own way. Ate plenty of steak and fried chicken w/mashed pots at the coral today. Was n1.

joe i ate at some place called shari's when i was in oregon and it was pretty fucking delicious

denny's clone, but yes, nb grub
good pies too

pies