South Carolina sheriff may charge Michael Phelps with possession of marijuana | Sport | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/feb/03/michael-phelps-smoking-marijuana)

"Leon Lott, a South Carolina sheriff, says he will charge Michael Phelps with a crime if he determines the Olympics hero smoked marijuana in Richland County.

Phelps, who set a record with eight gold medals in the 2008 Summer Olympics, was photographed smoking a marijuana pipe at a November party in Columbia, South Carolina.

The picture was published in the British newspaper News of the World. Phelps apologised on Sunday, calling his behaviour "inappropriate".

"This case is no different than any other case," Lott said yesterday. "This one might be a lot easier since we have photographs of someone using drugs and a partial confession. It's a relatively easy case once we can determine where the crime occurred."

Possession of marijuana is a misdemeanour, punishable by up to 30 days in jail or a $570 (£395) fine, plus court costs.

But Lott seems to be the only person talking about making a case against Phelps. Both the University of South Carolina and Columbia police departments said they would not pursue charges.

It was unclear yesterday where the party took place, including whether it was on the university's campus."

:roflmao::killingme:roflmao::killingme:roflmao:

Silly Sheriff, you can't charge someone with "Possession of marijuana" off just a picture. :lol:

What a maroon. :loser:

:lol:

I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall when Sheriff Lott walks in to the District Attorney's office with his overwhelming evidence :jet: and the DA laughs in his face. :roflmao:

Cue the music.

:inkeefolbermannvoice:

Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff Leon Lott -- today's WORST PERSON IN THE WOOORRRLLLDDDDD!!!!

:lol:

:roflmao::killingme:roflmao::killingme:roflmao:

Silly Sheriff, you can't charge someone with "Possession of marijuana" off just a picture. :lol:

What a maroon. :loser:

:lol:

The "best" I think he can get is possession of paraphanalia (sp?)
and that's only if they find that bong in his house or something :lol:

Wow, this has just taken a turn for the (even) stupider

The "best" I think he can get is possession of paraphanalia (sp?)
and that's only if they find that bong in his house or something :lol:

Wow, this has just taken a turn for the (even) stupider

Obviously you don't have to know a damn thing about the law to be a sheriff in Richland County. :lmao:

Michael Phelps could've taken that picture in Amsterdam for all we know.

I hope he goes forward with his vendetta. He'll be unseated in the next County election quicker than Mousebaby creating a new MPD and rejoining SOMD Forums. :jet:

The "best" I think he can get is possession of paraphanalia (sp?)
and that's only if they find that bong in his house or something :lol:

Wow, this has just taken a turn for the (even) stupider
$570? If Phelps really wanted to be a role model, and maybe even keep some endorsement deals, he would ask to be charged, plead guilty, pay his fine, and make announcement after announcement about the dangers and problems with drug use and how he's changed his life, sorry for the taint he put on himself and his team mates, etc., etc.

It would be the responsible thing to do, set an example, and keep him money.

$570? If Phelps really wanted to be a role model, and maybe even keep some endorsement deals, he would ask to be charged, plead guilty, pay his fine, and make announcement after announcement about the dangers and problems with drug use and how he's changed his life, sorry for the taint he put on himself and his team mates, etc., etc.

It would be the responsible thing to do, set an example, and keep him money.

I would lose all respect for him if he did that.

$570? If Phelps really wanted to be a role model, and maybe even keep some endorsement deals, he would ask to be charged, plead guilty, pay his fine, and make announcement after announcement about the dangers and problems with drug use and how he's changed his life, sorry for the taint he put on himself and his team mates, etc., etc.

It would be the responsible thing to do, set an example, and keep him money.

Did you ever smoke marijuana as a kid?

Honestly, it's just a harmless little plant. Smoking marijuana is no big deal. It's just mother####in' weed. All it does is mellow you for a few hours and make you hungry.

He used it to help him maintain his 12000 calorie a day diet. :yay:

I would lose all respect for him if he did that.Why?

$570? If Phelps really wanted to be a role model, and maybe even keep some endorsement deals, he would ask to be charged, plead guilty, pay his fine, and make announcement after announcement about the dangers and problems with drug use and how he's changed his life, sorry for the taint he put on himself and his team mates, etc., etc.

It would be the responsible thing to do, set an example, and keep him money.

you said taint... uh huh huh huh

Did you ever smoke marijuana as a kid?

Honestly, it's just a harmless little plant. Smoking marijuana is no big deal. It's just mother####in' weed. All it does is mellow you for a few hours and make you hungry.

He used it to help him maintain his 12000 calorie a day diet. :yay:No. It was illegal then, just like now.

Smoking, period, is bad for you. And, I always move away from the smoke when I sit by a campfire, so I saw no need to put the smoke in my face on purpose to do something illegal that was going to artificially change my mood/personality. Sounded really, really stupid to me then, not much smarter (as in not at all) today.

I'm sure you'll give me the "oh, so you do NOTHING bad for you huh?" speech. Save it. Yes, I do things that are bad for me. None of them are illegal, nor do any of them artificially change my mood, nor do any of them screw up my ability to breathe now or later in life.

No. It was illegal then, just like now.

Smoking, period, is bad for you. And, I always move away from the smoke when I sit by a campfire, so I saw no need to put the smoke in my face on purpose to do something illegal that was going to artificially change my mood/personality. Sounded really, really stupid to me then, not much smarter (as in not at all) today.

I'm sure you'll give me the "oh, so you do NOTHING bad for you huh?" speech. Save it. Yes, I do things that are bad for me. None of them are illegal, nor do any of them artificially change my mood, nor do any of them screw up my ability to breathe now or later in life.

So you've never actually smoked it so you know jack and #### about what you're talking about? OK.

Take the government at their word. They know what's best for you. :yay:

:rolleyes:

It's amazing how people who are generally conservative turn in to blood-sucking nanny state liberals when it comes to a little harmless plant.

No. It was illegal then, just like now.

So, by looking at the picture, you KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that he was smoking it in Richland County, South Carolina and not someplace where it's decriminalized or legal?

It's amazing how you know everything about everything. How do I obtain your intelligence oh wise one? :notworthy

Why?
Because...I was disappointed enough with that apology he gave, but I'm sure some PR guy was hounding him to apologize now so it's easier to deal with.
If he completely sold out his ideals to make more money or even because he THINKS that is the way to be a role model, he would lose the respect from me.
If he stands up and says that he made a personal choice that he felt (feels) was right, then that garners respect. Giving in because people want to invade your personal life is no good.

No. It was illegal then, just like now.

Smoking, period, is bad for you. And, I always move away from the smoke when I sit by a campfire,

cooled smoke isn't the same as hot smoke :whistle:
(I also avoid inhaling campfire smoke :lol:)

So you've never actually smoked it so you know jack and #### about what you're talking about? OK.

Take the government at their word. They know what's best for you. :yay:

:rolleyes:

It's amazing how people who are generally conservative turn in to blood-sucking nanny state liberals when it comes to a little harmless plant.I've never broken a leg, either, or gotten brain cancer. Do I need to do that before I can conclude those are not good things?

I'm not a nanny-state liberal about following the law. I'm a conservative. I believe laws should be followed. If the law is bad, we have a process to correct that, and we should use it - not violate it.

I've never broken a leg, either, or gotten brain cancer. Do I need to do that before I can conclude those are not good things?

I'm not a nanny-state liberal about following the law. I'm a conservative. I believe laws should be followed. If the law is bad, we have a process to correct that, and we should use it - not violate it.

well this is too easy...
do you not speed or ever run stop signs?
Are some laws more worth following than others? :popcorn:

It doesnt sound as if would base it off a picture

Oh, so he might also bring in witnesses who said he was high once upon a time.:lol:

He's got to have evidence. Hard, solid evidence. A picture ain't gonna cut it.

So, by looking at the picture, you KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that he was smoking it in Richland County, South Carolina and not someplace where it's decriminalized or legal?

It's amazing how you know everything about everything. How do I obtain your intelligence oh wise one? :notworthyI claim to know nothing about this other than what's been reported, and admitted to.

Anyone who thinks Phelps was not toking up didn't read any of Phelp's comments.

Regardless, my suggestion was about personal responsibility. Even if he's innocent of the crime, no one believes that. My suggestion was for his image, for demonstrating responsibility, and keeping his endorsements.

well this is too easy...
do you not speed or ever run stop signs?
Are some laws more worth following than others? :popcorn:

Got him there. :buddies:

Oh, so he might also bring in witnesses who said he was high once upon a time.:lol:

He's got to have evidence. Hard, solid evidence. A picture ain't gonna cut it.

Hopefully Phelps learns that you NEVER come out admitting to something like that if it can have legal ramifications because lord only knows that cops like this are going to jump on the opportunity.

Regardless, my suggestion was about personal responsibility. Even if he's innocent of the crime, no one believes that. My suggestion was for his image, for demonstrating responsibility, and keeping his endorsements.

:roflmao: :killingme :roflmao: :killingme :roflmao: :killingme :roflmao: :killingme :roflmao: :killingme

Because...I was disappointed enough with that apology he gave, but I'm sure some PR guy was hounding him to apologize now so it's easier to deal with.
If he completely sold out his ideals to make more money or even because he THINKS that is the way to be a role model, he would lose the respect from me.
If he stands up and says that he made a personal choice that he felt (feels) was right, then that garners respect. Giving in because people want to invade your personal life is no good.



cooled smoke isn't the same as hot smoke :whistle:
(I also avoid inhaling campfire smoke :lol:)If he admitted that he committed the crime, took responsibility for the crime, and THEN spoke out in favor of changing the laws, I'd respect that. Saying "I don't give a #### about the law - I don't agree with it so I'm above it" is a bad message to send even if all it is is to your kid brother, let alone the American youth that almost had a decent role model to follow.

If he admitted that he committed the crime, took responsibility for the crime, and THEN spoke out in favor of changing the laws, I'd respect that. Saying "I don't give a #### about the law - I don't agree with it so I'm above it" is a bad message to send even if all it is is to your kid brother, let alone the American youth that almost had a decent role model to follow.

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SMOKED THE EVIL GREEN PLANT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT DECRIMINALIZED/LEGAL????

If he admitted that he committed the crime, took responsibility for the crime, and THEN spoke out in favor of changing the laws, I'd respect that. Saying "I don't give a #### about the law - I don't agree with it so I'm above it" is a bad message to send even if all it is is to your kid brother, let alone the American youth that almost had a decent role model to follow.

You do make a point there...but if he does it for endorsement purposes, it gets a thumbs down from me :boo:
if he does it to show that it's a ridiculous crime that needs addressed, he would get points in my book.

well this is too easy...
do you not speed or ever run stop signs?
Are some laws more worth following than others? :popcorn:Nope, they all need followed.

And, if I get a speeding ticket, I would not announce that I was against the speed limit, think it's too intrusive on my life, and therefore I'm above the law so #### off. I would admit I committed a crime, pay my fee. If I felt the speed limit was too restrictive where I got my ticket, I would try and get the limit changed (if it was that important to me).

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SMOKED THE EVIL GREEN PLANT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT DECRIMINALIZED/LEGAL????

and then there's that. :lol:

This just crossed my mind...how illegal are drugs on international waters?
Like, someone under 21 can drink if out to sea, how about doing drugs?

Nope

:bs: :liar:

Nope, they all need followed.

And, if I get a speeding ticket, I would not announce that I was against the speed limit, think it's too intrusive on my life, and therefore I'm above the law so #### off. I would admit I committed a crime, pay my fee. If I felt the speed limit was too restrictive where I got my ticket, I would try and get the limit changed (if it was that important to me).

But you'd never get a ticket if you followed the law :confused:
So you DO choose what laws you want to follow, correct?

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SMOKED THE EVIL GREEN PLANT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT DECRIMINALIZED/LEGAL????Which state is that? Why do you throw in (in all caps, mind you :lol:) something that's not even suggested by anyone.

Pictures are out of him toking up. He says, "damn, I got caught, and I'm sorry about that". You're taking a simple thing to the nth degree with no justification.

You do make a point there...but if he does it for endorsement purposes, it gets a thumbs down from me :boo:
if he does it to show that it's a ridiculous crime that needs addressed, he would get points in my book.
I'll buy that. Sounds like we've reached an agreement - admit it, pay the fine, then fight against the law (if that's how he feels).

Which state is that? Why do you throw in (in all caps, mind you :lol:) something that's not even suggested by anyone.

Pictures are out of him toking up. He says, "damn, I got caught, and I'm sorry about that". You're taking a simple thing to the nth degree with no justification.

You've already said he's guilty and commited a crime when you don't even know where the alleged crime took place.

:cool:

Jebus Heist people!!!! Phelps didnt murder anyone. He just smoked some pot.

Other than the Sheriff (who is just trying to make a name for himself and put his unknown town on the map), who the heck cares.

Is it really worth loosing sleep over???

Jebus Heist people!!!! Phelps didnt murder anyone. He just smoked some pot.

But...

MARIJWONA IS TEH DEBILLL!!!!!111!! :cds:

But you'd never get a ticket if you followed the law :confused:
So you DO choose what laws you want to follow, correct?Yes, we all choose to follow the laws in a civilized society. Laws work through the consent of the governed.

I could go all Andy on you, and come up with a scenerio where I'm going downhill and my speedometer suddenly fails and I'm trying to follow the law, but that would be as ridiculous as he is. I speed, and if I get caught, I admit it, not claim I'm above the law because I don't like the law.

But...

MARIJWONA IS TEH DEBILLL!!!!!111!! :cds:

Obama didnt seem to mind :whistle:

You've already said he's guilty and commited a crime when you don't even know where the alleged crime took place.When did I say he was guilty?

I said "even if he's not guilty" - implying that may be the case.

His image is shot as a role model unless he does something.

I think this would be a BS move on the part of the sheriff - he's likely just catering to a voting base that wants their insecure belief, that they should have the right to exercise moral control over others, to be validated. I doubt he would pursue the issue if it weren't for the media attention that the situation has garnered. I'm not questioning his right to charge Phelps, just his motives in doing so - I suspect they would have less to do with justice and more to do with expediency.

That said, he probably could get a conviction or a guilty plea in this specific case. For PR reasons, Phelps probably wouldn't invoke his 5th Amendment rights, and thus his own testimony might convict him. More likely though, he would just plead to the charges and accept the legal consequences, which would seem to be less damaging than the consequences of trying to resist them.

Jebus Heist people!!!! Phelps didnt murder anyone. He just smoked some pot.

Other than the Sheriff (who is just trying to make a name for himself and put his unknown town on the map), who the heck cares.

Is it really worth loosing sleep over???Not for me. Phelps losing his income and the respect of millions means little to me. My kids have never been stupid enough to use illegal drugs, and wouldn't use his example to change that.

I was just saying...... :lol:

Obama didnt seem to mind :whistle:

Add Michael Phelps to the list of successful Marijuana smokers.

So the President of the United States...

... and the greatest Olympic Athlete of All Time...

... Jimmy Hendrix ...

... the list could go on.

Yep, marijuana is evil. :sarcasm:

Obama didnt seem to mind :whistle:

Omg...I about pissed myself when the news anchor compared Phelps to Clinton, and said that there was no proof he inhaled. :killingme

Not for me. Phelps losing his income and the respect of millions means little to me. My kids have never been stupid enough to use illegal drugs, and wouldn't use his example to change that.

I was just saying...... :lol:

:bs:

You just don't know it.

One of them will at least try it once... statistics don't lie.

Are you going to crucify them if they do? (IF you find out that is:lol:)

Add Michael Phelps to the list of successful Marijuana smokers.

I love when this comes up because Cheech and Chong made a flipping career out of it :killingme

Omg...I about pissed myself when the news anchor compared Phelps to Clinton, and said that there was no proof he inhaled. :killingme

I'm rolling back here reading the posts from the perfect all-knowing one... :roflmao:

Like I said, it's incredible how conservatives turn into Nanny State liberals over Marijuana.

I love when this comes up because Cheech and Chong made a flipping career out of it :killingme

Right. :lol:

Don't forget Sublime. :yay:

A 23 year old incredibly successful and wealthy professional athlete smoked marijuana in his off-season (of note, the only off-season he's had in his entire sporting life) ? Say it isn't so!

:cds:

:bs:

You just don't know it.

One of them will at least try it once... statistics don't lie.

Are you going to crucify them if they do? (IF you find out that is:lol:)I don't know what type of relationship you have with your parents, but it's not BS.

Statistics show they could, might, etc. Unless the statistic is 100%, my kids fall into the "didn't do it" side.

No, I wouldn't crucify them. I'd expect them to be responsible for their actions, as they've been taught to be in all aspects of their life.

I love when this comes up because Cheech and Chong made a flipping career out of it :killingme

Willie Nelson

Willie Nelson

HWo_E5fNg60

you said taint... uh huh huh huh

:lol:

I don't know what type of relationship you have with your parents, but it's not BS.

Statistics show they could, might, etc. Unless the statistic is 100%, my kids fall into the "didn't do it" side.

No, I wouldn't crucify them. I'd expect them to be responsible for their actions, as they've been taught to be in all aspects of their life.

Riiiight.

Keep telling yourself that. Give me a holla' when you snap back to reality.

Riiiight.

Keep telling yourself that. Give me a holla' when you snap back to reality.

Gotta side with Andy on this one too...I've got an extensively open relationship with my parents and it took years for me to have any reason to discuss various things I've done :lol:

Riiiight.

Keep telling yourself that. Give me a holla' when you snap back to reality.Again, just because either you or the crowd you hang with do not have open relationships with your parents does not mean that NO offspring do.

Clearly, the personal responsibility I've taught my kids works out better than whatever it is your parents taught you.

My life and perspectives are fully within reality. People (including me) break the law. When caught, good people own up to it - weasels try and get out of it.

Again, just because either you or the crowd you hang with do not have open relationships with your parents does not mean that NO offspring do.

Clearly, the personal responsibility I've taught my kids works out better than whatever it is your parents taught you.

My life and perspectives are fully within reality. People (including me) break the law. When caught, good people own up to it - weasels try and get out of it.

:pointsandlaughs:

Gotta side with Andy on this one too...I've got an extensively open relationship with my parents and it took years for me to have any reason to discuss various things I've done :lol:I may be a statistical abnormality, but it's not that outside the realm of likelihood.

I know my kids. I know who they hang and hung with, and was there virtually every time they came home at night, or from a school function, or out with the "gang". I know what they looked like, know how they act, know where they are in life today. They have some things to look back on as examples of mistakes (nobody's perfect), but illegal drug use is not one of them.

:pointsandlaughs:Intelligent, biting, insightful

All words that don't describe your arguing techniques.

I may be a statistical abnormality, but it's not that outside the realm of likelihood.

I know my kids. I know who they hang and hung with, and was there virtually every time they came home at night, or from a school function, or out with the "gang". I know what they looked like, know how they act, know where they are in life today. They have some things to look back on as examples of mistakes (nobody's perfect), but illegal drug use is not one of them.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

BTW, Marijuana is not a drug. It's a plant.

ahahahahahahaha

heheheh

bwaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha

ahahahahahahahahaha

hehehehehehehehehehehehe

I may be a statistical abnormality, but it's not that outside the realm of likelihood.

I know my kids. I know who they hang and hung with, and was there virtually every time they came home at night, or from a school function, or out with the "gang". I know what they looked like, know how they act, know where they are in life today. They have some things to look back on as examples of mistakes (nobody's perfect), but illegal drug use is not one of them.

The folks my parent's thought did drugs, didn't, and the ones they thought didn't, had at least dabbled...in most cases.
You can think you know all you want, but kids will be kids.
I have a great, open relationship with my parents, and I still wouldn't tell them certain things unless I had reason to. :yay:
Just take it for what it is, but your kids could obviously be different than me :lol:

The folks my parent's thought did drugs, didn't, and the ones they thought didn't, had at least dabbled...in most cases.
You can think you know all you want, but kids will be kids.
I have a great, open relationship with my parents, and I still wouldn't tell them certain things unless I had reason to. :yay:
Just take it for what it is, but your kids could obviously be different than me :lol:

My parents found out I smoked weed... three years later. :whistle:

And they didn't give a damn, said it's just a plant.

This thread is better than DirecTV :roflmao:

The folks my parent's thought did drugs, didn't, and the ones they thought didn't, had at least dabbled...in most cases.
You can think you know all you want, but kids will be kids.
I have a great, open relationship with my parents, and I still wouldn't tell them certain things unless I had reason to. :yay:
Just take it for what it is, but your kids could obviously be different than me :lol:I'll concede it is a possibiliity. Just not a very big one.

My kids and I trust each other, and are honest and open with each other.

My siblings were crazy pot-heads. I know the smells, I know the signs. I know the honors class kid is just as likely as the "special needs" class kid to toke up. It's more than the surface.

I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm not too worried that I am.

My parents found out I smoked weed... three years later. :whistle:

And they didn't give a damn, said it's just a plant.Well, that explains your attitude (as I suggested).

Peyote is just a plant, too, isn't it?

Hemlock?

This thread is better than DirecTV :roflmao:When you mature into your age bracket, you'll find lots of things are better than DirecTV.

Well, that explains your attitude (as I suggested).

Peyote is just a plant, too, isn't it?

Hemlock?

:lol: Opium? :pete:

I'll concede it is a possibiliity. Just not a very big one.

My kids and I trust each other, and are honest and open with each other.

My siblings were crazy pot-heads. I know the smells, I know the signs. I know the honors class kid is just as likely as the "special needs" class kid to toke up. It's more than the surface.

I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm not too worried that I am.


An ounce of weed: $90

A bag of Doritos: $4

A can of Axe: $5

A can of Full Throttle: $2

Successfully hiding your pot habit from your parents: Priceless

An ounce of weed: $90

A bag of Doritos: $4

A can of Axe: $5

A can of Full Throttle: $2

Successfully hiding your pot habit from your parents: PricelessIt may have worked on your parents. I wouldn't work on me.

It may have worked on your parents. I wouldn't work on me.

##### if I was your kid and I smoked pot, you'd never find out (until I decided to tell you) :whistle:

An ounce of weed: $90

A bag of Doritos: $4

A can of Axe: $5

A can of Full Throttle: $2

Successfully hiding your pot habit from your parents: Priceless

:roflmao:

##### if I was your kid and I smoked pot, you'd never find out (until I decided to tell you) :whistle:Perhaps.


However, if you were my kid, you never would have had the desire to, and peer pressure would be pretty minimal to you.

And, you'd probably get caught the first time.

Perhaps.


However, if you were my kid, you never would have had the desire to, and peer pressure would be pretty minimal to you.

And, you'd probably get caught the first time.

:killingme :killingme :killingme :killingme

Um, okay. :lmao:

:killingme :killingme :killingme :killingme

Um, okay. :lmao:You can laugh, but not all kids are raised with the lack of respect for the rule of law and the low self-esteem you clearly have.

I mean, do you think you'd be so nasty and immature to people if you had any real self worth? I don't.

You can laugh, but not all kids are raised with the lack of respect for the rule of law and the low self-esteem you clearly have.

I mean, do you think you'd be so nasty and immature to people if you had any real self worth? I don't.

:pointsandlaughs:

My parents found out I smoked weed... three years later. :whistle:

And they didn't give a damn, said it's just a plant.

I thought you posted that you and your parents all toked up around the lava lamp weekly starting around when you were 14.

I thought you posted that you and your parents all toked up around the lava lamp weekly starting around when you were 14.

:confused:

Must've been my MPD :roflmao:

:pointsandlaughs:
Didn't we do this once?:pointsandlaughs:Intelligent, biting, insightful

All words that don't describe your arguing techniques.

You can laugh, but not all kids are raised with the lack of respect for the rule of law and the low self-esteem you clearly have.

I mean, do you think you'd be so nasty and immature to people if you had any real self worth? I don't.

I'm sorry, my parents didn't have all the answers to life. :ohwell:

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SMOKED THE EVIL GREEN PLANT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT DECRIMINALIZED/LEGAL????

SHAKE YOUR TINY BALLED-UP FISTS WITH RAGE

I'm sorry, my parents didn't have all the answers to life. :ohwell:Neither did mine, and neither do I.

That doesn't mean one can't have self-esteem.

##### if I was your kid and I smoked pot, you'd never find out (until I decided to tell you) :whistle:

It's obvious by the beaver's post his parents smoked weed.....Lot's of it....:killingme

Neither did mine, and neither do I.

That doesn't mean one can't have self-esteem.

Please help me find thy way in life oh holy one :notworthy

SHAKE YOUR TINY BALLED-UP FISTS WITH RAGE

:roflmao:

Please help me find thy way in life oh holy one :notworthyYou want me to help you find my way in life? :lol:


Introspection, self-reliance, self-worth, rule of law, higher purpose.

Work on those for a few years and get back to me.

It's obvious by the beaver's post his parents smoked weed.....Lot's of it....:killingme

Melwood called, they need their poster child/foodcritic back.

Did you ever smoke marijuana as a kid?

Honestly, it's just a harmless little plant. Smoking marijuana is no big deal. It's just mother####in' weed. All it does is mellow you for a few hours and make you hungry.

He used it to help him maintain his 12000 calorie a day diet. :yay:

That isn't what the research shows:

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has the potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. In one study, heavy marijuana abusers reported that the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including physical and mental health, cognitive abilities, social life, and career status.11 Several studies associate workers’ marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover.

Numerous studies have shown marijuana smoke to contain carcinogens and to be an irritant to the lungs. In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke. Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which further increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. Marijuana smokers show dysregulated growth of epithelial cells in their lung tissue, which could lead to cancer;8 however, a recent case-controlled study found no positive associations between marijuana use and lung, upper respiratory, or upper digestive tract cancers.9 Thus, the link between marijuana smoking and these cancers remains unsubstantiated at this time.

Nonetheless, marijuana smokers can have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers, such as daily cough and phlegm production, more frequent acute chest illness, a heightened risk of lung infections, and a greater tendency toward obstructed airways. A study of 450 individuals found that people who smoke marijuana frequently but do not smoke tobacco have more health problems and miss more days of work than nonsmokers.10 Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

THC acts upon specific sites in the brain, called cannabinoid receptors, kicking off a series of cellular reactions that ultimately lead to the “high” that users experience when they smoke marijuana. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. The highest density of cannabinoid receptors are found in parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thoughts, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement.1

Not surprisingly, marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.2 As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Not that I think he should be charged with any crime, but to say that marijuana is harmless isn't necessarily the truth.

InfoFacts - Marijuana (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html)

So you've never actually smoked it so you know jack and #### about what you're talking about? OK.

Take the government at their word. They know what's best for you. :yay:

:rolleyes:

It's amazing how people who are generally conservative turn in to blood-sucking nanny state liberals when it comes to a little harmless plant.

I've never used heroin or shot myself but I am pretty sure both are bad for me?

That isn't what the research shows:

Not that I think he should be charged with any crime, but to say that marijuana is harmless isn't necessarily the truth.

InfoFacts - Marijuana (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html)

Abuse/over-use of MANY substances ruin lives, and I won't disagree that some people allow pot to do that, but is it because of the substance itself...or the person that takes it?

Abuse/over-use of MANY substances ruin lives, and I won't disagree that some people allow pot to do that, but is it because of the substance itself...or the person that takes it?

Are you retarded because you were dropped or is it a birth defect?

Melwood called, they need their poster child/foodcritic back.

I dont recall making that phone call :confused:

Are you retarded because you were dropped or is it a birth defect?

Johnny's spilled his fair share of stupid today but he's right about that. :shrug:

I dont recall making that phone call :confused:

:lol:

Are you retarded because you were dropped or is it a birth defect?

:killingme
I think you're serious.
I pity you.

I love when this comes up because Cheech and Chong made a flipping career out of it :killingme

And didn't Tommy Chong get busted for possession of marijuana?

Right. :lol:

Don't forget Sublime. :yay:

And how is Bradley Nowell doing?

This thread is a good example that too much weed turns you into a poncy little git.

Add Michael Phelps to the list of successful Marijuana smokers.

So the President of the United States...

... and the greatest Olympic Athlete of All Time...

... Jimmy Hendrix ...

... the list could go on.

Yep, marijuana is evil. :sarcasm:

So lets examine these people and their illustrious personal lives:

William Jeffereson Clinton? Impeached while in office, and committed perjury.

Jimmy Hendrix? How did he die? Oh, asphixiation from drugs and alcohol.

Michael Phelps. Well, still kicking after his dui and now the scandal about marijuana. Do you have any other role models you want to exhibit?

Willie Nelson

Ah another fine American. With his lack of tax paying abilities I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't nominated for a cabinet position.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

BTW, Marijuana is not a drug. It's a plant.

You really aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? So because cocaine comes from the coca leave it isn't a drug?

Marijuana is a psychoactive drug extracted from the plant Cannabis sativa. The herbal form of the drug consists of dried mature flowers and subtending leaves of pistillate (female) plants.

Ah another fine American. With his lack of tax paying abilities I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't nominated for a cabinet position.

didnt stop people from listening to his music and buy his albums

didnt stop people from listening to his music and buy his albums

Amy Whinehouse is a heroin addict, Roman Polanski was a teenie toucher, O.J. Simpson is a double murderer. What's your point?

Amy Whinehouse is a heroin addict, Roman Polanski was a teenie toucher, O.J. Simpson is a double murderer. What's your point?

Out of curiousity...what imperfect things have you done? :lmao:

Amy Whinehouse is a heroin addict, Roman Polanski was a teenie toucher, O.J. Simpson is a double murderer. What's your point?

That people dont give a crap... So why the eff do you?

Out of curiousity...what imperfect things have you done? :lmao:
You really are stupid. You respond to a post where I write about a muderer, child sex offender, and a heroin addict and ask me what imperfect things I have done? Can you get any dumber? When your IQ reaches fifty, sell!

That people dont give a crap... So why the eff do you?

Don't you think that is part of the problem? People don't give a crap, so why should the person exhibiting the bad behavior change? Why should they act accordingly if there are no consequences to bad behavior? While I again, don't think Michael Phelps should be prosecuted for this crime, I don't condone him breaking the law. Olympians are supposed to represent the best of what this country is all about. Whey those olympians don't live up to a minimal standard of a law abiding person, they let everyone down. It is a further deterioration of this countries value system when we allow it to go unchecked.

You really are stupid. You respond to a post where I write about a muderer, child sex offender, and a heroin addict and ask me what imperfect things I have done? Can you get any dumber? When your IQ reaches fifty, sell!

:roflmao:
It was in response to all of your dumb posts in this thread, I just chose to not quote them all :wink:

Don't you think that is part of the problem? People don't give a crap, so why should the person exhibiting the bad behavior change? Why should they act accordingly if there are no consequences to bad behavior? While I again, don't think Michael Phelps should be prosecuted for this crime, I don't condone him breaking the law. Olympians are supposed to represent the best of what this country is all about. Whey those olympians don't live up to a minimal standard of a law abiding person, they let everyone down. It is a further deterioration of this countries value system when we allow it to go unchecked.

I have NEVER considered an Olympian to be any more than an extraordinary athlete...I don't expect them to be perfect (or near it even) in any aspect of their lives

:roflmao:
It was in response to all of your dumb posts in this thread, I just chose to not quote them all :wink:
Good come back! You are a sharp one.

Good come back! You are a sharp one.

Ok...who let this guy out into society, unsupervised?

I have NEVER considered an Olympian to be any more than an extraordinary athlete...I don't expect them to be perfect (or near it even) in any aspect of their lives

And that is likely because you never played an organized sport in High School or College, therefore never having a coach tell you about the importance of integrity and the honor of having kids look up to you as an amature athlete, especially one who may someday make it to the Olympics.

I'll concede it is a possibiliity. Just not a very big one.

My kids and I trust each other, and are honest and open with each other.

My siblings were crazy pot-heads. I know the smells, I know the signs. I know the honors class kid is just as likely as the "special needs" class kid to toke up. It's more than the surface.

I hope I'm not wrong, but I'm not too worried that I am.

You know the signs?!?!

That's how I know you have no clue...

By the way..

I found the link that I meant to post a while back.

Watch it. Even though you don't condone it - it's a very enlightening documentary.

The Union: The business behind getting high. (http://blip.tv/file/1356143/)

And that is likely because you never played an organized sport in High School or College, therefore never having a coach tell you about the importance of integrity and the honor of having kids look up to you as an amature athlete, especially one who may someday make it to the Olympics.

:killingme
Interesting.
Nope, didn't have that.
I expect athletes to be human, like anyone else :yay:

Neither did mine, and neither do I.

That doesn't mean one can't have self-esteem.

I know you're a smart person, but you are a very narrow minded individual.

People who smoke weed have low self-esteem?

That may be the case for some, but to make a generalization like that is pure nonsense.

That isn't what the research shows:



Not that I think he should be charged with any crime, but to say that marijuana is harmless isn't necessarily the truth.

InfoFacts - Marijuana (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but those are all myths perpetuated by the government and it's war on drugs.

There are no - I REPEAT - NO - documented cases where someone has died or lost their cognitive abilities because of smoking marijuana alone.

Don't you think that is part of the problem? People don't give a crap, so why should the person exhibiting the bad behavior change? Why should they act accordingly if there are no consequences to bad behavior? While I again, don't think Michael Phelps should be prosecuted for this crime, I don't condone him breaking the law. Olympians are supposed to represent the best of what this country is all about. Whey those olympians don't live up to a minimal standard of a law abiding person, they let everyone down. It is a further deterioration of this countries value system when we allow it to go unchecked.

:killingme

The only time this country cares about the Olympians, is during the Olympics.

When it’s not the Olympics, they are just ordinary citizens of this country. Those same people now go back to their lives just like the rest of us.

Do you really think the rest of the world is going to look at us any different over what a pot smoking swimmer does during his own time when he is not competing???

Our government does far worse with its foreign policy that what Michael Phelps could ever do.

:killingme

The only time this country cares about the Olympians, is during the Olympics.

When it’s not the Olympics, they are just ordinary citizens of this country. Those same people now go back to their lives just like the rest of us.



Really?

Tell me where you have heard these household names outside of the Olympics?

Nadia Comaneci

Mark Spitz

Jennifer Capriati

Or dozens of other Olympians who are famous and are positive role models soley for their Olympic appearences. You are correct in that our poloticians make mistakes, but these olympians, more so than paid athletes are there representing what is supposed to be good about our country. You illistrate my point perfectly when you say it's no big deal. That is how are country has become watered down. People in certain positions should be held to a higher standard because of the priveleges which come along with those positions.

Really?

Yes, really.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but those are all myths perpetuated by the government and it's war on drugs.

There are no - I REPEAT - NO - documented cases where someone has died or lost their cognitive abilities because of smoking marijuana alone.

Yea, right big conspiracy! Please! Independent studies have concluded that there is cognitive loss as well as other health issues related to regular use of marijuana.

While there have been no documented cases of marijuana being the primary cause of death, it has been linked to hundreds of deaths as a secondary or contributing factor. So play you stat games, but you are full of crap and must know it because you did the research.

Yes, really.

I noticed you didn't quote the rest. That is because you are either too stupid, too young or both to know who those people are. Settle down little boy. Just because you spent your high school years stuffed into a school locker, or in the basement of the science building with your xmen doesn't mean you have an intelligent thought.

Well i'm pretty sure Smoking Weed didnt keep Michael Phelps from winning all the BLING!!! And he looks pretty healthy

And that is the idiotic attitude our youth will take. Why not smoke weed, Michael Phelps does it and look at the shape he is in. Of course, not all of these kids will be able to work out 6 to 8 hours a day and have world class trainers, equipment and facilities. But you hit on the head. Phelps can do it and achieve, so therefore everyone can! You are a knuckledrager!

Charles Barkely has soemthing for the Idiotic Role Model statement:

nMzdAZ3TjCA

If a kid thinks of an athlete as a role model, in regard to anything outside of performance in a particular sport and solely because they are a famous athlete, then that kid's parents (or whomever raised them) failed somewhere along the way.

$570? If Phelps really wanted to be a role model, and maybe even keep some endorsement deals, he would ask to be charged, plead guilty, pay his fine, and make announcement after announcement about the dangers and problems with drug use and how he's changed his life, sorry for the taint he put on himself and his team mates, etc., etc.

It would be the responsible thing to do, set an example, and keep him money.

You're high right now, aren't you?

They are household name because they were winners in the Olympics you tool.

Originally Posted by iamanmpd
Really?

Tell me where you have heard these household names outside of the Olympics?

Nadia Comaneci - Link At the age of 14, Comaneci became one of the stars of the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal. During the team portion of the competition, her routine on the uneven bars was scored at a 10.0. It was the first time in modern Olympic gymnastics history that the score had ever been awarded. The scoreboards were not even equipped to display scores of 10.0—so Nadia's perfect marks were reported on the boards as 1.00 instead.[18] Over the course of the Olympics, Comaneci would earn six additional 10s, en route to capturing the all-around, beam, and bars titles and a bronze medal on the floor exercise. The Romanian team also placed second in the team competition.[19]

Mark Spitz - Link Mark Andrew Spitz (born February 10, 1950) is a retired American swimmer, best known for whining because he wasn't "invited (read: compted airfare and accomodations)" to the 2008 Olympics in China.

Jennifer Capriati - Link The following year, she won the women's singles gold medal at the Olympic Games in Barcelona. In the final, she defeated Steffi Graf (who was the gold medalist four years earlier in Seoul) 3–6, 6–3, 6–4



Charles Barkely has soemthing for the Idiotic Role Model statement:

Parents blaming Football or Michael Phelps for how their kid turns out, are no different than the hand out mentallity that is reinforced with idiotic social policies. YOU (as the Parent) are responsible for your kid not Michael Phelps.


:Fixed:

Jennifer Capriati

Amid mounting pressures to live up to the expectations placed on her, and a first round loss to Leila Meskhi at the 1993 US Open, Capriati took a break from competitive tennis in late 1993. She soon ran into personal and legal troubles. She was involved in a shoplifting (a ring, that was worth $35) incident in December 1993, and in May 1994 was arrested for marijuana possession. In November 1994, Capriati attempted a return to the tour at a tournament in Philadelphia. The return lasted just one match, losing to Anke Huber in the first round. After that, she did not play on the tour for 15 months. Her arrests and associated mugshot made her "the poster child for burned-out sports prodigies," to quote the Chicago Sun-Times.[3] [4]

Big deal, Michael Phelps is holding a bong to his mouth, I don't see any smoke so... Ol' Sheriff Buford T. Justice is going to get his feelings hurt if he tries to bring up charges based on what, a picture and "eyewitness" accounts? I'm SURE that someone could work a little PhotoShop magic and gin up a pic of the good sheriff with Drago the wonder donkey going full blast in a smoked filled back room of a Tijuana midget hermaphrodite strip club.

And hey, where can you buy a bong for smoking weed? I think he was smoking tobacco... Obama smokes too!

Yea, right big conspiracy! Please! Independent studies have concluded that there is cognitive loss as well as other health issues related to regular use of marijuana.

While there have been no documented cases of marijuana being the primary cause of death, it has been linked to hundreds of deaths as a secondary or contributing factor. So play you stat games, but you are full of crap and must know it because you did the research.

There have been independent studies of UFO's and ghosts...

That doesn't make them true.

For every study that you can produce there can be a counter study showing the exact opposite.

And that is the idiotic attitude our youth will take. Why not smoke weed, Michael Phelps does it and look at the shape he is in. Of course, not all of these kids will be able to work out 6 to 8 hours a day and have world class trainers, equipment and facilities. But you hit on the head. Phelps can do it and achieve, so therefore everyone can! You are a knuckledrager!

Hey!

Why not drink alcohol?

There are so many commercials on TV selling it! You too can be another statistic and kill or be killed drinking and driving.

Hey my role model just got popped for DUI!

It's the in thing to do!

:cds:

Olympians That Have Posed For Playboy: A Comprehensive Guide | Olympics (http://www.faniq.com/blog/Olympians-That-Have-Posed-For-Playboy-A-Comprehensive-Guide-Blog-10789)


oh the horror.... Dont these people know they have to live at a higher standard, because once an olympian, always and olympian. Dont they know, they are the thread that holds the fabric of our country together. What will our kids think??? What will the world think???? :sarcasm: :whistle: :lol:

Olympians That Have Posed For Playboy: A Comprehensive Guide | Olympics (http://www.faniq.com/blog/Olympians-That-Have-Posed-For-Playboy-A-Comprehensive-Guide-Blog-10789)


oh the horror.... Dont these people know they have to live at a higher standard, because once an olympian, always and olympian. Dont they know, they are the thread that hold the fabric of our country together. What will our kids think??? What will the world think???? :sarcasm: :whistle: :lol:

Dear Lord Stanley,
Thank you for the link I will be saving for later. :high5:

:lol:

Dear Lord Stanley,
Thank you for the link I will be saving for later. :high5:

:lol:

Welcome. I myself will be checking it out when I get home :lol:

You attempted to make an idiotic point that 3 Olympians were household names, for some reason other than because they were Olympians. :shrug: Your failure at making any kind of sensible point, is your cross to bear, not anyone elses. Instead of trying to strenthen your point, you show your weakness by attempting lame versions of my Nickname, but fail to realize its an anonymous name that has no meaning.

Its kind of hard to explain to your kids, "Hey drugs are bad, it will cause problems, makes you lose brain cells, makes you lazy". When the fact is, we've had the Highest office in the land held by Persons who partook, Athelets and Celebrities a plenty who excelled at their career and embibed. They counter the notion that Drugs are anything different than Alchohol and Cigarrettes (which are more harmful) that are legal.

But continue to make up silly word games on peoples nicknames, since you cant make a point that makes sense, maybe you at least be a source of amusement.

Exactly.

I think alcohol abuse is much more harmful to one's self than marijuana. But, we sell that by the gallons. People are killed everyday because of drinking and driving.

I've never heard of a man beating his wife and kids because he was stoned...

Exactly.

I think alcohol abuse is much more harmful to one's self than marijuana. But, we sell that by the gallons. People are killed everyday because of drinking and driving.

I've never heard of a man beating his wife and kids because he was stoned...

the only thing pot smokers kill, is a bag of chips when they get the munchies :lol:

You attempted to make an idiotic point that 3 Olympians were household names, for some reason other than because they were Olympians. :shrug: Your failure at making any kind of sensible point, is your cross to bear, not anyone elses. Instead of trying to strenthen your point, you show your weakness by attempting lame versions of my Nickname, but fail to realize its an anonymous name that has no meaning.

But continue to make up silly word games on peoples nicknames, since you cant make a point that makes sense, maybe you at least be a source of amusement.

No retard! I was making a point that those people were household names because they were in the Olympics! Read much? God you are an idiot knuckledrager!

Olympians That Have Posed For Playboy: A Comprehensive Guide | Olympics (http://www.faniq.com/blog/Olympians-That-Have-Posed-For-Playboy-A-Comprehensive-Guide-Blog-10789)


oh the horror.... Dont these people know they have to live at a higher standard, because once an olympian, always and olympian. Dont they know, they are the thread that holds the fabric of our country together. What will our kids think??? What will the world think???? :sarcasm: :whistle: :lol:

Sure, you are right. Why should anyone have values? What does it matter that celebrity athletes smoke dope? Ah who cares. They should be allowed to do heroin and cocaine without recourse. That's a great society you envision. If you can swim fast, we should still buy the product you endorse no matter what the negative behavior you exhibit. Sounds right to me! :sarcasm:

No retard! I was making a point that those people were household names because they were in the Olympics! Read much? God you are an idiot knuckledrager!

So you were proving OUR point by showing that they are nothing more than Olympians? They are not role models because of their personal actions, but because of their athletics...
You need to take your medicine :lol:

So you were proving OUR point by showing that they are nothing more than Olympians? They are not role models because of their personal actions, but because of their athletics...
You need to take your medicine :lol:

No moron, I wasn't proving your point. I know that you were never allowed to play sports and probably spent much of your high school years stuffed in a locker, but those of us who did participate in high school and college athletics looked up to these people and aspired to become them. So when they send a message to adolescents that you can behave with reckless abandonment and still be successful, it sends a wrong message to those athletes who don't have the same opportunities, or skills as these athletes, but because of their youth they believe they do!

No moron, I wasn't proving your point. I know that you were never allowed to play sports and probably spent much of your high school years stuffed in a locker, but those of us who did participate in high school and college athletics looked up to these people and aspired to become them. So when they send a message to adolescents that you can behave with reckless abandonment and still be successful, it sends a wrong message to those athletes who don't have the same opportunities, or skills as these athletes, but because of their youth they believe they do!

Reckless abandonment??? :cds:

:killingme


Umm reality check. Pot isnt something new. And Phelps wasnt the first one to do it.

It think your parents may have done too much, which is why you hold these athletes to a higher standard than the average person.

No moron, I wasn't proving your point. I know that you were never allowed to play sports and probably spent much of your high school years stuffed in a locker, but those of us who did participate in high school and college athletics looked up to these people and aspired to become them. So when they send a message to adolescents that you can behave with reckless abandonment and still be successful, it sends a wrong message to those athletes who don't have the same opportunities, or skills as these athletes, but because of their youth they believe they do!

:killingme :roflmao:
Yes, let us not dash the dreams of those kids too dumb to realize that only a small percentage of even COLLEGE ball players end up playing professionally.

It's ok, I don't look at you for having to be a PE teacher now...everyone can't play pro ball :shrug:

Reckless abandonment??? :cds:

:killingme


Umm reality check. Pot isnt something new. And Phelps wasnt the first one to do it.

It think your parents may have done too much, which is why you hold these athletes to a higher standard than the average person.
But it isn't just the pot. It is the dui he received last year. You don't think getting into a car and driving under the influence is reckless abandonment?

Reckless abandonment??? :cds:

:killingme


Umm reality check. Pot isnt something new. And Phelps wasnt the first one to do it.

It think your parents may have done too much, which is why you hold these athletes to a higher standard than the average person.

I seem to recall the MAJORITY of jocks smoking dope...which makes this that much funnier :lol:

:killingme :roflmao:
Yes, let us not dash the dreams of those kids too dumb to realize that only a small percentage of even COLLEGE ball players end up playing professionally.

It's ok, I don't look at you for having to be a PE teacher now...everyone can't play pro ball :shrug:

And here you are waisting you life away on this site. Like in high school, you couldn't committ yourself to a goal, and here you are waisting your employer's money by chatting on this site. Before you go and try and throw it back at me, I'm off work right now on my own time.

And here you are waisting you life away on this site. Like in high school, you couldn't committ yourself to a goal, and here you are waisting your employer's money by chatting on this site. Before you go and try and throw it back at me, I'm off work right now on my own time.

I know it's hard for someone more physically than mentally capable to understand, but some of us can manage to get our work done AND do something else at the same time :roflmao:

I know it's hard for someone more physically than mentally capable to understand, but some of us can manage to get our work done AND do something else at the same time :roflmao:
So then your employer is absolutely fine with you being on here for several hours a day?

And here you are waisting you life away on this site. Like in high school, you couldn't committ yourself to a goal, and here you are waisting your employer's money by chatting on this site. Before you go and try and throw it back at me, I'm off work right now on my own time.

:killingme :killingme

And here you are wasting your own personal time chatting on this site instead of commiting yourself to a goal like coaching a youth sport or something... :killingme

Abuse/over-use of MANY substances ruin lives, and I won't disagree that some people allow pot to do that, but is it because of the substance itself...or the person that takes it?This is a fair question.

My thought is that it would be both.

The person must be alone in a dark cave for their entire lives, with no access to any people, schooling, books, radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, etc., etc., to not be aware of the potential problems with the drug before they take it, and take it anyway when they're stone cold sober (ie, not under the influence of it yet). That, in and of itself, tells you something about the person's reasoning capabilities - they either are youthful and full of the Superman complex, or just not that bright when it comes to their own health. This implies something about the person's drive, abilities, etc. Certainly this is a generic statement, not an all inclusive one, as I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence of people (other than the incalculable advances to society Willie Nelson brought :rolleyes:) who partake but are still active members of society. However, as Andy so adroitly pointed out, statistics are statistics.

Meanwhile, THC can be addictive, can provide the mood and drive altering issues, and the health effects per the information provided. Given that, once the person has partaken, they will be subject to these effects.

So, to me it's kind of like someone knowing they can't swim and jumping into the deepest part of a lake, with cement bricks being tied to their bound feet and hands. Some people can overcome this, and knowingly jump into the lake with their hands and feet tied to bricks while being unable to swim. Others (statistically - a lot :lol:) can not survive this without help.

:killingme :killingme

And here you are wasting your own personal time chatting on this site instead of commiting yourself to a goal like coaching a youth sport or something... :killingme

Wrong again. I coach travel soccer and I assist with swim teams. I am also in the big brother program and mentor middle school students. I have a vast resume of other community programs I assist with. Would you like to compare?

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but those are all myths perpetuated by the government and it's war on drugs.

There are no - I REPEAT - NO - documented cases where someone has died or lost their cognitive abilities because of smoking marijuana alone.Are you really suggesting that the government is lying to you to stop people from smoking a joint? And, after this long of their tactic not working, they keep doing it?

Meanwhile, THC can be addictive, can provide the mood and drive altering issues, and the health effects per the information provided. Given that, once the person has partaken, they will be subject to these effects.


I'm curious what you define 'addictive' as. THC will not cause withdrawal symptoms if one were to quit using marijuana.

It _can_ be habitual though.


So, to me it's kind of like someone knowing they can't swim and jumping into the deepest part of a lake, with cement bricks being tied to their bound feet and hands. Some people can overcome this, and knowingly jump into the lake with their hands and feet tied to bricks while being unable to swim. Others (statistically - a lot :lol:) can not survive this without help.


I'm curious how you quantify something like this.

Where is your data coming from?

Charles Barkely has soemthing for the Idiotic Role Model statement:

Parents blaming Football or Michael Phelps for how their kid turns out, are no different than the hand out mentallity that is reinforced with idiotic social policies. YOU (as the Parent) are responsible for your kid not Michael Phelps.There's no doubt this is true. And, as parents/adults/citizens/members of society, we have both a right and obligation to speak out against those things with which we disagree, and for those things with which we agree. And, to attempt to celebrate (and make celebrities of) those people who personify the good, and vilify those people with whom we find fault (according to our standards).

Meanwhile, THC can be addictive, can provide the mood and drive altering issues, and the health effects per the information provided. Given that, once the person has partaken, they will be subject to these effects.

THC, in and of itself, isn't addictive.
The only thing people can be addicted to are the effects of the drug...which leads ME to believe that only people with certain personalities/traits can be effectively "addicted" to the drug. To the average person, there isn't a risk of needing that high...they may enjoy being stoned more than being sober, but they don't need it...it is the folks that feel they cannot live without that high, who sacrifice work, family, etc for it, that have a problem. Should this be regulated by making the substance illegal, or by regulating who shouldn't take it because of a mental illness of some kind (and this involves an addictive personality...because anything can be taken too far if someone continues to take it after seeing how negatively it impacts their life (lung cancer patient continuing to smoke cigarettes, liver cancer patient continuing to drink alcohol, etc).

Certain people are more susceptible to becoming reliant on a drug for "completion" in their life. At least that is my opinion on the matter.

I'm curious what you define 'addictive' as. THC will not cause withdrawal symptoms if one were to quit using marijuana.

It _can_ be habitual though.

You beat me to it since I dragged my post out :lmao:

I'm curious what you define 'addictive' as. THC will not cause withdrawal symptoms if one were to quit using marijuana.

It _can_ be habitual though. Addictive Potential (http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html)
Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction; that is, compulsive drug seeking and abuse despite its known harmful effects upon social functioning in the context of family, school, work, and recreational activities. Long-term marijuana abusers trying to quit report irritability, sleeplessness, decreased appetite, anxiety, and drug craving, all of which make it difficult to quit. These withdrawal symptoms begin within about 1 day following abstinence, peak at 2–3 days, and subside within 1 or 2 weeks following drug cessation.

THC, in and of itself, isn't addictive.Actually, it isIs marijuana addictive? (http://www.brown.edu/Student_Services/Health_Services/Health_Education/atod/marijuana.htm)
No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users.

For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting.

Actually, it is

Interesting studies, but it at least WAS an accepted fact that THC isn't addictive, but people who are susceptible to becoming dependant on the effects (such as, people with depression that need it to just feel "normal") could become "addicted". Is that REALLY addiction though, when it is something that is, in all respects, necessary for them to live their lives? Would you call someone like that addicted to anti-depressants, because I'm sure they'd have similar reactions to being taken off of those after a long period of use.
:shrug:

Interesting studies, but it at least WAS an accepted fact that THC isn't addictive, but people who are susceptible to becoming dependant on the effects (such as, people with depression that need it to just feel "normal") could become "addicted". Is that REALLY addiction though, when it is something that is, in all respects, necessary for them to live their lives? Would you call someone like that addicted to anti-depressants, because I'm sure they'd have similar reactions to being taken off of those after a long period of use.
:shrug:I'm not a doctor.

A government study, and numerous (just Google "addictive properties of THC") independant studies call it mildly addictive - physically and psychologically. So, you have a valid point about the psychological effects, but it appears to be the general conclusion of the medical community that it is also physically addictive, if mildly so for most (85%+) - and strongly for others (10-15%).

I'm not a doctor.

A government study, and numerous (just Google "addictive properties of THC") independant studies call it mildly addictive - physically and psychologically. So, you have a valid point about the psychological effects, but it appears to be the general conclusion of the medical community that it is also physically addictive, if mildly so for most (85%+) - and strongly for others (10-15%).

I have no problem saying that I think they're wrong. In general, it is just a desire to reach the same cannaboid receptor reaction as they got before, for pleasure, relaxation, etc. This can be gotten in other ways, but some people don't know how to replace the drug use with a different cannaboid reactor. Addiction is a widely abused term, IMO. An addiction cannot be replaced...it requires weening off of the substance and relapse is easily caused by exposure to the substance again (alcohol, for example). When something can be replaced by other substances or activities, I do not call it addiction.

You didn't answer my question. Does your employer know you are on here?

HOW DO YOU KNOW HE SMOKED THE EVIL GREEN PLANT IN A STATE WHERE IT IS NOT DECRIMINALIZED/LEGAL????
Hey dipsh!t weed is illegal by FEDERAL law, therefor it is illegal in EVERY state.

I have no problem saying that I think they're wrong.

Found a great example:
Behavioral models for studying cannabinoid motivational and reinforcing properties

Drug discrimination

Early studies identified the discriminative stimulus properties of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive constituent of cannabis. Because animals did not easily self-administer cannabinoids, initial studies analyzed the subjective properties of cannabinoids with this task. Animals easily associate the pharmacological properties of low doses of THC (0.20 mg/kg) with a correct response for a reward (i.e., food) in a two-lever drug discrimination task (Jarbe et al., 1976). The discriminative stimulus effects of THC are pharmacologically selective. Non-cannabinoid drugs generally do not substitute for THC, whereas cannabinomimetic drugs fully substitute for THC in pigeons, rats, and monkeys (Wiley et al., 1995). A GABAergic component may be involved in cannabinoid drug discrimination, as revealed by the partial substitution elicited by diazepam (Wiley and Martin, 1999). Cannabinoid discriminative effects are prevented by pretreatment with the CB1R antagonist SR141716A (Wiley et al., 1995). Anandamide and stable analogs of this endocannabinoid do not fully substitute for THC, indicating a different pharmacological profile for natural and synthetic cannabinoids and endocannabinoids (Wiley, 1999).

Cannabinoid Addiction: Behavioral Models and Neural Correlates -- Maldonado and Rodr#guez de Fonseca 22 (9): 3326 -- Journal of Neuroscience (http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/22/9/3326)

This, IMO, shows an addiction to the reaction and not the drug itself. This is why it can't be linked to the physically addictive properties of other substances, because the body never becomes reliant on having the drug (UNLESS the person were to say, sit in a corner and do nothing, in which case they would obviously have withdrawal symptoms because their cannaboid receptors are not being used at all and going from constant use, to nothing, is going to cause a reaction.)

I have no problem saying that I think they're wrong. In general, it is just a desire to reach the same cannaboid receptor reaction as they got before, for pleasure, relaxation, etc. This can be gotten in other ways, but some people don't know how to replace the drug use with a different cannaboid reactor. Addiction is a widely abused term, IMO. An addiction cannot be replaced...it requires weening off of the substance and relapse is easily caused by exposure to the substance again (alcohol, for example). When something can be replaced by other substances or activities, I do not call it addiction.I respect your opinion, but I have to accept that your opinion is but a part of the medical community's opinion. They agree with you, AND say that it is ALSO physically addictive, by whatever means they have to justify that statement.

They include numerous qualifiers (long term daily use, for one) to show who is effected, but they demonstrate that the effect is there nonetheless.

You didn't answer my question. Does your employer know you are on here?
I prefer to have intelligent discussion. When you can come back and give that, we can talk :howdy:

Hey dipsh!t weed is illegal by FEDERAL law, therefor it is illegal in EVERY state.

His point was that Phelps could have been overseas, for example, when that picture was taken.

His point was that Phelps could have been overseas, for example, when that picture was taken.Then dipsh!t should have said "country" not "state" in his post. Either way he was wrong. Plus, Phelps has admitted it was him and that he was at the specified party. Thus, dipsh!t is wrong again.

You didn't answer my question. Does your employer know you are on here?

Does yours??? Wait let me guess. You're self employed....

Such a model citizen. Why can’t more Olympians be like you...

I mean, why do they have to be so.... Human...

Does yours??? Wait let me guess. You're self employed....

Such a model citizen. Why can’t more Olympians be like you...

I mean, why do they have to be so.... Human...
No, I am not self employed. I am off work today. I don't waist my employers money chatting on here.

I prefer to have intelligent discussion. When you can come back and give that, we can talk

Good duck of the question. You don't want to answer the question because you know your employer doesn't know you are on here and wouldn't condone you being on here for several hours a day. Just another further example of how your ethics are screwed up. You feel since you are getting some work done, it is ok to be chatting on here. Well the truth of the matter is you could be more productive not being on here, but you don't have the fortitude to admit that truth!

Are you really suggesting that the government is lying to you to stop people from smoking a joint? And, after this long of their tactic not working, they keep doing it?

Yes.

They're pretty stupid, aren't they?

I am off work today.

How convinent :rolleyes:

Good duck of the question. You don't want to answer the question because you know your employer doesn't know you are on here and wouldn't condone you being on here for several hours a day. Just another further example of how your ethics are screwed up. You feel since you are getting some work done, it is ok to be chatting on here. Well the truth of the matter is you could be more productive not being on here, but you don't have the fortitude to admit that truth!

Nope, I just disagree with your opinion.
I know that I would do less work if I was stuck JUST doing mindless work, instead of also posting on here, for example. It's just the way I work.

Nope, I just disagree with your opinion.
I know that I would do less work if I was stuck JUST doing mindless work, instead of also posting on here, for example. It's just the way I work.

So why not answer the question then. Does your employer know you spend hours a day on this site, or does your employer know that you spend any time at all here?

No, I am not self employed. I am off work today. I don't waist my employers money chatting on here.

I assume you were off work when you posted all this :confused::

Never said anybody was wrong. I said I don't believe a person should be killed for a burgulary. I said that I don't believe a person should be shot if they are "Fleeing". Not seen as fleeing. Make up some more lies. You keep wanting to throw the what if's in there. I keep telling you that you have to do what you have to do to defend your home. You want an answered tailored to you. Sorry, that isn't how life works. Again, man up.

You don't know what you are talking about! The FOP is not tax exempt, they are not a charitable organization, they are a non-profit. They give to many charities in the county. So what it used to be a church. The church sold it. The place next to the liquor store on Great Mills Road used to be a church to and now it's a laundry. You just like to complain about the police, even when you have no justification. Why not stop being a hater. We don't hate that you work at Wal-Mart Corky!

I don't get what the big deal is? Guys who are not being paid by anybody having a good time. Maybe not something I would do, but who cares. Unless this was done while they were giving their time to fight a fire and there was some loss, who cares. Too many people involved in other people's business.

Maybe not the best idea to post it on their website, but that has been corrected.

An mpd is a different name than your nic. In example, somone might have a nic of oh lets see, smcop. They may change that to iamanmpd. Therefore, using smcop as their real name and a fake name to "fool" everyone of iamanmpd.

Interesting?

Cops: Officer Bit, Dog Killed, Meth Dealer Found in Closet - NBCSANDIEGO.COM- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28581438/)

You really are no mensa! Don't you realize that Metro Transit Police have jurisdiction in Maryland, The District and Virginia? Don't you realize that they have more to do than ride busses and metro trains? Who do you think take care of crimes in the stations, parking lots, and bus terminals off site? How do you think they should get there? County roads only? It amazes me that people like you don't want to wish well on an officer but immediately look to critisize something!

Um...wouldn't it be pedophiles posing as Christians?

I know I would get fired from my job if I acted that way.

I assume you were off work when you posted all this :confused::

That is a correct assumption because I have NEVER posted while at work. I work 11 1/2 hour shifts, four on and three off. That equates to fifteen days a month, and I get four weeks a year vacation leave and personal days. Next question?

So why not answer the question then. Does your employer know you spend hours a day on this site, or does your employer know that you spend any time at all here?

I'm a fan of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy :shrug:

I'm a fan of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy :shrug:

Right, that's because you are unethical. Your employer doesn't know you spend hours a day on this site spewing your endless dribble of how the world should work even though you have zero real life experience. Keep stealing time from your employer. Your opinion that this makes you more productive just strenghthens the argument that you should not be unsupervised. Dumbazz.

Right, that's because you are unethical. Your employer doesn't know you spend hours a day on this site spewing your endless dribble of how the world should work even though you have zero real life experience. Keep stealing time from your employer. Your opinion that this makes you more productive just strenghthens the argument that you should not be unsupervised. Dumbazz.

:lol:

:lol:
That is always your answer when you know you are beaten. Thank you, I win!

That is a correct assumption because I have NEVER posted while at work. I work 11 1/2 hour shifts, four on and three off. That equates to fifteen days a month, and I get four weeks a year vacation leave and personal days. Next question?

:lol:

:lmao::lmao:

:killingme:killingme:killingme

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

:lol:

:lmao::lmao:

:killingme:killingme:killingme

:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

Nice to see you and the tard Johnny share the same debating skills.

:lol:

I love how we've got all these perfect people in Southern Maryland. :killingme

Nice to see you and the tard Johnny share the same debating skills.

Yep, you're right. You're perfect. You, sir, are a saint. I bow to your superiority and perfection. :notworthy

That is always your answer when you know you are beaten. Thank you, I win!

:roflmao: You win, what exactly?

That is my response when I know I'm talking to someone who feels a need to prove his self-worth because of his lacking self-esteem. Reassurance that you're a harder worker because you *think* that someone else must be less productive than you if they're doing something else too.

:roflmao: You win, what exactly?

That is my response when I know I'm talking to someone who feels a need to prove his self-worth because of his lacking self-esteem. Reassurance that you're a harder worker because you *think* that someone else must be less productive than you if they're doing something else too.
No, I know you are less productive. Otherwise, why would you hide the fact that you spend hours and hours a day on here talking with people, looking up facts, from your employer. It shows your lack of ethics and how you justify to yourself how you cheat your employer.

Yep, you're right. You're perfect. You, sir, are a saint. I bow to your superiority and perfection. :notworthy

Thank you, I am glad you finally realized that!

Are you really suggesting that the government is lying to you to stop people from smoking a joint? And, after this long of their tactic not working, they keep doing it?

Lying?

Misguided, maybe.

Is the war on drugs working?

Do you still believe that there are/were WMD's?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe that there were other motives involved pertaining to their stance on marijuana use.

Lying?

Misguided, maybe.

Is the war on drugs working?

Do you still believe that there are/were WMD's?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe that there were other motives involved pertaining to their stance on marijuana use.

Betcha they can sell more cigarettes (which are actually addictive), which are taxed, if pot isn't legal...:whistle:

I'm not a doctor.

A government study, and numerous (just Google "addictive properties of THC") independant studies call it mildly addictive - physically and psychologically. So, you have a valid point about the psychological effects, but it appears to be the general conclusion of the medical community that it is also physically addictive, if mildly so for most (85%+) - and strongly for others (10-15%).


When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms


You can google things up all day long and in minutes I can find something that refutes what you will find.

Since 1982, UCLA researchers have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.

The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases


Myth 2...

MARIJUANA CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE


The original basis of this claim was a report that, upon postmortem examinations, structural changes in several brain regions were found in two rhesus monkeys exposed to THC. 51 Because these changes primarily involved the hippocampus, a cortical brain region known to play an important role in learning and memory, this finding suggested possible negative consequences for human marijuana users.

Additional studies, employing rodents, reported similar brain changes.

However, to achieve these results, massive doses of THC - up to 200 times the psychoactive dose in humans - had to be given . In fact, studies employing 100 times the human dose have failed to reveal any damage. 52

In the most recently published study, rhesus monkeys were exposed through face-mask inhalation to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day for one year. When sacrificed seven months later, there was no observed alteration of hippocampal architecture, cell size, cell number, or synaptic configuration. The authors conclude:

"while behavioral and neuroendocrinal effects are observed during marijuana smoke exposure in the monkey, residual neuropathological and neurochemical effects of marijuana exposure were not observed seven months after the year-long marijuana smoke regimen." 53

Thus, 20 years after the first report of brain damage in two marijuana-exposed monkeys, the claim of damage to brain cells has been effectively disproven.

No postmortem examinations of the brains of human marijuana users have ever been conducted. However, numerous studies have explored marijuana effect on brain-related cognitive functions. Many employ an experimental design - in which subjects are given marijuana in a laboratory setting, and then compared to controls on a variety of measures involving attention, learning and memory.

In a number of studies, no significant differences were detected. 54 In fact, there is substantial research demonstrating that that marijuana intoxication does not impair the retrieval of information learned previously. 55 However, there is evidence that marijuana, particularly in high doses, may interfere with users' ability to transfer new information into longterm memory. 56

While there is general agreement that, while under the influence of marijuana, learning is less efficient, 57 there is no evidence that marijuana users - even longterm users - suffer permanent impairment. Indeed, numerous studies comparing chronic marijuana users with non-user controls have found no significant differences in learning, memory recall or other cognitive functions. 58

No moron, I wasn't proving your point. I know that you were never allowed to play sports and probably spent much of your high school years stuffed in a locker, but those of us who did participate in high school and college athletics looked up to these people and aspired to become them. So when they send a message to adolescents that you can behave with reckless abandonment and still be successful, it sends a wrong message to those athletes who don't have the same opportunities, or skills as these athletes, but because of their youth they believe they do!

I disagree, how can we blame Phelps when our estemed leader has admitted to not only smoking maryjuana (Of course I inhaled, thats how you do it isn't it? (or some such quote)), but also snorting cocaine! Now that is being a role model!!!

Myself, I don't think it should a law should effect what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't interfer with someone elses rights, but until the law is changed, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!

Lying?

Misguided, maybe.

Is the war on drugs working?

Do you still believe that there are/were WMD's?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I firmly believe that there were other motives involved pertaining to their stance on marijuana use.No, the war on drugs is not working - because they've been fighting it wrong all along, IMO.

Yes, I believe that the WMD's Saddam used on Iran and the Kurds were real, and thus there at least were WMD's.

You can google things up all day long and in minutes I can find something that refutes what you will find.My source was linked, and was Brown University and the US Gov't.

Yours?

No, the war on drugs is not working - because they've been fighting it wrong all along, IMO.

Yes, I believe that the WMD's Saddam used on Iran and the Kurds were real, and thus there at least were WMD's.

You believe.

WMD's as pertaining to Iraq meant nuclear capabilities.

None were found.

I believe a 50 cal Barrett Sniper Rifle is a WMD.

If you gave me one of those there would be the potential of mass deaths...

I disagree, how can we blame Phelps when our estemed leader has admitted to not only smoking maryjuana (Of course I inhaled, thats how you do it isn't it? (or some such quote)), but also snorting cocaine! Now that is being a role model!!!

Myself, I don't think it should a law should effect what you do in the privacy of your own home as long as it doesn't interfer with someone elses rights, but until the law is changed, IT IS ILLEGAL!!!I agree it's illegal.

You answered how it effects more than just someone's individual rights, but the society at large - in the past five elections (at least), we've elected known controlled substance abisers for president because our standards have been lowered to accept that pot is 'just a plant'.

My source was linked, and was Brown University and the US Gov't.

Yours?

Ah.

So it was linked.

That makes it fact.

Read it again.

These tests were conducted at UCLA.

You believe.

WMD's as pertaining to Iraq meant nuclear capabilities.

None were found.

I believe a 50 cal Barrett Sniper Rifle is a WMD.

If you gave me one of those there would be the potential of mass deaths...Not only did it not mean nuclear, Bush said they did not have the capability of nulear weapons - but that he'd been informed by other intelligence services that they were trying.

I agree it's illegal.

You answered how it effects more than just someone's individual rights, but the society at large - in the past five elections (at least), we've elected known controlled substance abisers for president because our standards have been lowered to accept that pot is 'just a plant'.

You have no idea how it affects society at large.

Because I can guarantee you that we can never be certain who uses - for fear of reprisal.

Ah.

So it was linked.

That makes it fact.

Read it again.

These tests were conducted at UCLA.So you say.....

Not only did it not mean nuclear, Bush said they did not have the capability of nulear weapons - but that he'd been informed by other intelligence services that they were trying.


WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.


CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/)

So you say.....

I can whip up an HTML page in a few minutes if that's what you need...

I can whip up an HTML page in a few minutes if that's what you need...

No matter, I've proven my point

CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/)Neat.... doesn't answer whether they were there or not, nor whether they're still there and just well hidden (how many planes have they found buried), or whether they were removed in the days leading up to the American invasion on the trains going to Syria........

But, the conclusion by the expert is that it's not worth searching any more. Neat.

No matter, I've proven my point

No you haven't...

You can provide a link.

So that makes it fact.

That is false...

I disagree, how can we blame Phelps when our estemed leader has admitted to not only smoking maryjuana (Of course I inhaled, thats how you do it isn't it? (or some such quote)),

See my siggy :lol:

No you haven't...

You can provide a link.

So that makes it fact.

That is false...I didn't say it was a fact.

But, when you provide a link to your source, you can let others decide for themselves what was actually published in context, for individual research.

Neat.... doesn't answer whether they were there or not, nor whether they're still there and just well hidden (how many planes have they found buried), or whether they were removed in the days leading up to the American invasion on the trains going to Syria........

But, the conclusion by the expert is that it's not worth searching any more. Neat.

I provided a link - therefore it must be taken as fact.

No WMD's were found.

Q.E.D.

I provided a link - therefore it must be taken as fact.

No WMD's were found.

Q.E.D.No link to your "Mythbusters" quotes.

The link to WMD's says there were none found, and it's not worth the expert's time to keep searching.

I believe that report - but it says nothing about whether they were there previously. Do you believe they were not used on the Kurds and Iranians?

But, when you provide a link to your source, you can let others decide for themselves what was actually published in context, for individual research.

Ah. I see.

So since you believe there were/are WMD's - although experts disagree - they existed!?!?

Come on man...

Your individual research over in Iraq led you to believe that they did.

Neat.

No link to your "Mythbusters" quotes.

The link to WMD's says there were none found, and it's not worth the expert's time to keep searching.

I believe that report - but it says nothing about whether they were there previously. Do you believe they were not used on the Kurds and Iranians?

Weapons were used against them.

Correct.

An entire Marine battalion could be considered a WMD then.

Hell - a platoon of seals could cause 'mass destruction.'

Hiroshima, Nagasaki... Those were WMD's.

Ah. I see.

So since you believe there were/are WMD's - although experts disagree - they existed!?!?

Come on man...

Your individual research over in Iraq led you to believe that they did.

Neat.Do you believe the Kurds and Iranians were not attacked with WMD's? If they weren't, that really shoots a hole in my theory they probably existed, at least when they were being used.

No link to your "Mythbusters" quotes.


No link was provided at the time because I forgot to.

Now that I actually took the time to look

Erowid : About Us (http://www.erowid.org/general/about/about.shtml)

Do you believe the Kurds and Iranians were not attacked with WMD's? If they weren't, that really shoots a hole in my theory they probably existed, at least when they were being used.

What do you consider a WMD?

Only you can answer that question.

Apparently experts sent to Iraq can't for you.

Weapons were used against them.

Correct.

An entire Marine battalion could be considered a WMD then.

Hell - a platoon of seals could cause 'mass destruction.'

Hiroshima, Nagasaki... Those were WMD's.The US of A did use a WMD against Japan in WWII. Very good.

A Marine battalion, in and of itself, is not a WMD. Chemical weapons are, biological weapons are, nuclear weapons are. Marines with conventional weapons - not so much.

No link was provided at the time because I forgot to.

Now that I actually took the time to look

Erowid : About Us (http://www.erowid.org/general/about/about.shtml)That looks a lot different than the UCLA website! :lmao:

That looks a lot different than the UCLA website! :lmao:


Since 1982, UCLA researcher have evaluated pulmonary function and bronchial cell characteristics in marijuana-only smokers, tobacco-only smokers, smokers of both, and non-smokers. Although they have found changes in marijuana-only smokers, the changes are much less pronounced than those found in tobacco smokers.

The nature of the marijuana-induced changes were also different, occurring primarily in the lung's large airways - not the small peripheral airways affected by tobacco smoke. Since it is small-airway inflammation that causes chronic bronchitis and emphysema, marijuana smokers may not develop these diseases


I said the studies were done at UCLA.

:howdy:

It's on the internet. Check
I provided a link. Check

That looks a lot different than the UCLA website! :lmao:

Furthermore...

I didn't know Brown Uni was the leading authority on Marijuana and its use.

Where does Erowid get its information?
The information on the site is a compilation of the experiences, words, and efforts of thousands of individuals including users, parents, health professionals, doctors, therapists, chemists, researchers, teachers, and lawyers. Erowid acts as a publisher of new information as well as a library for the collection of documents published elsewhere. Articles and information written by Erowid are researched using printed resources, web resources and input from these experts. Many articles are submitted for publication by others. These articles are reviewed and often edited before being accepted for publication.


...

I said the studies were done at UCLA.

:howdy:

It's on the internet. Check
I provided a link. CheckIt's a terribly biased source with a stated agenda, and therefore anything it publishes is questionable, check

Furthermore...

I didn't know Brown Uni was the leading authority on Marijuana and its use.I didn't either - who ever suggested that it was?

Not biased, but I don't know anyone who's claiming it's the "leading authority".

It's a terribly biased source with a stated agenda, and therefore anything it publishes is questionable, check

And you really thing that anything the government puts out isn't biased....


RIIIIIGGGGHHHTTTT....

:cds:

It's a terribly biased source with a stated agenda, and therefore anything it publishes is questionable, check

:howdy:
:dye:
:killingme
:evil:
:coffee:

It's a terribly biased source with a stated agenda, and therefore anything it publishes is questionable, check

What's funny is..

If it doesn't fit your current argument whatever people say is either biased or written off entirely.

You're so full of crap you must have doodoo brown eyes.

Furthermore...

You cited a source from Brown Uni.

I showed a study that was conducted at UCLA.

Are you saying that UCLA was biased?

If so, how can you claim Brown Uni wasn't?

Like I said... You're full of guano.

Furthermore...

You cited a source from Brown Uni.

I showed a study that was conducted at UCLA.

Are you saying that UCLA was biased?

If so, how can you claim Brown Uni wasn't?

Like I said... You're full of guano.Show me the UCLA study in it's original published form, not as modified by a group intent on brainwashing people into believing there is no problem with drugs, and I'll accept that there are two sides to the argument.

Show me the UCLA study in it's original published form, not as modified by a group intent on brainwashing people into believing there is no problem with drugs, and I'll accept that there are two sides to the argument.

Oxycontin = Drug
Marijuana = Not a Drug

You are against harmless weed but you and the rightiesget your news from Rush the drug user.

Oxycontin = Drug
Marijuana = Not a Drug

You are against harmless weed but you and the rightiesget your news from Rush the drug user.WTF are you talking about? When have I ever quoted Rush or suggested I "get my news" from him?

I've heard our president was a drug user (from him, in his book). Will you stop listening to him?

Meanwhile, THC is a drug.

Meanwhile, THC is a drug.

It's a naturally occurring plant.

So, by your definition you must also consider drinking tea drug use.

Drinking coffee etc.

It's all about perspective.

It's a naturally occurring plant.

So, by your definition you must also consider drinking tea drug use.

Drinking coffee etc.

It's all about perspective.
I didn't define plant use as drug use, you did.

I'm not that stupid.

I didn't define plant use as drug use, you did.

I'm not that stupid.

No, you defined natural-substance use as drug use.
Ie: Caffeine, from his coffee/tea examples

I consider caffeine...and THC...drugs though :lol: I'm not one of the folks that swears since it's naturally occuring, it shouldn't be called a drug :shrug:

I didn't define plant use as drug use, you did.

I'm not that stupid.

I didn't either.

I said it was a naturally occurring plant.

You said THC is a drug.

Since you define THC is a drug and since it's irrefutable that the THC within marijuana occurs naturally - it must be a naturally occurring drug.

Since this is the case, caffeine within tea and coffee - also produced through natural means - must, by your definition, be considered drug use.

See how ridiculous that is?

No, you defined natural-substance use as drug use.
Ie: Caffeine, from his coffee/tea examples

I consider caffeine...and THC...drugs though :lol: I'm not one of the folks that swears since it's naturally occuring, it shouldn't be called a drug :shrug:That's because you're not stupid..... :lmao:

I didn't either.

I said it was a naturally occurring plant.

You said THC is a drug.

Since you define THC is a drug and since it's irrefutable that the THC within marijuana occurs naturally - it must be a naturally occurring drug.

Since this is the case, caffeine within tea and coffee - also produced through natural means - must, by your definition, be considered drug use.

See how ridiculous that is?Those are also instances of drug use. Not illegal, but not "it's a plant not a drug" either.

What's the point of bringing out that the plant is a plant? Does that change the effects of the drug within the plant? Is caffeine illegal? Is THC?

It seems to me that the important, fundamental issue gets lost in all of the discussion about whether or not marijuana is harmful - whether or not it has negative long term affects on your health or mental acuity - whether or not it is addictive. I couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, is or isn't - I don't choose to use it because I haven't figured out anything that it will add to my life, so I don't need to consider its side effects. Those people who do think it adds something to their lives - they can worry about what its effects are or aren't.

The important issue is that people should have the right to do what they want, except to the extent that their actions directly and inappropriately harm others. You know - freedom. The argument that drug usage causes people to commit real crimes doesn't hold water. Making bad financial decisions might make someone more desperate for money and thus more likely to steal. Dating a hot woman might make you more likely to get insanely jealous if she breaks up with you, and thus more likely to kill someone in a jealous rage. Moving into a ghetto might make it more likely that your children are exposed to bad elements and thus end up being criminals when they grow up. All kinds of decisions that people make create an increased or diminished likelihood that they will commit certain crimes.

You don't restrict those decisions, you punish the crimes. If someone steals money to support their drug habit, then execute them for theft (or if you're not so inclined, throw them in jail for a decade or so). If someone does their job more poorly because they are stoned all the time, then their boss can fire them. If we think that people's diminished health or increased incompetence hurts the society in general, because societies socialist policies place the burden for their failings on everyone else - then we should get rid of those socialist policies so that other people aren't burdened by their failings. Both the left and the right need to stop telling people what they can and can't do. It's just ridiculous.

The driving force for these nanny state policies is this - a lot of people have internal and systemic insecurities stemming from the underlying feeling that they don't have as much control over their own lives as they would like. Invariably and subconsciously, they believe that exercising more control over other's lives will make up for that sickening feeling. Well, it won't. The more people try to control other people's behavior, the more they feel fundamentally empty inside, and the more they need to pursue control over others. You can't fix a power void within yourself by accumulating and exercising power over others. You just can't. Ask Bill Clinton - he rose to the heights of power over others, and still couldn't quiet that fundamental insecurity inside himself.

So, let other people do what they want. When they ACTUALLY hurt you, call them on it and make sure that there are consequences. But call them on the actual action that hurt you, not everything else in their life that created the conditions under which they took that action.

Sorry to get all Sigmund Freud up in here, but you know ... :lmao:

It seems to me that the important, fundamental issue gets lost in all of the discussion about whether or not marijuana is harmful - whether or not it has negative long term affects on your health or mental acuity - whether or not it is addictive. I couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, is or isn't - I don't choose to use it because I haven't figured out anything that it will add to my life, so I don't need to consider its side effects. Those people who do think it adds something to their lives - they can worry about what its effects are or aren't.

The important issue is that people should have the right to do what they want, except to the extent that their actions directly and inappropriately harm others. You know - freedom. The argument that drug usage causes people to commit real crimes doesn't hold water. Making bad financial decisions might make someone more desperate for money and thus more likely to steal. Dating a hot woman might make you more likely to get insanely jealous if she breaks up with you, and thus more likely to kill someone in a jealous rage. Moving into a ghetto might make it more likely that your children are exposed to bad elements and thus end up being criminals when they grow up. All kinds of decisions that people make create an increased or diminished likelihood that they will commit certain crimes.

You don't restrict those decisions, you punish the crimes. If someone steals money to support their drug habit, then execute them for theft (or if you're not so inclined, throw them in jail for a decade or so). If someone does their job more poorly because they are stoned all the time, then their boss can fire them. If we think that people's diminished health or increased incompetence hurts the society in general, because societies socialist policies place the burden for their failings on everyone else - then we should get rid of those socialist policies so that other people aren't burdened by their failings. Both the left and the right need to stop telling people what they can and can't do. It's just ridiculous.

The driving force for these nanny state policies is this - a lot of people have internal and systemic insecurities stemming from the underlying feeling that they don't have as much control over their own lives as they would like. Invariably and subconsciously, they believe that exercising more control over other's lives will make up for that sickening feeling. Well, it won't. The more people try to control other people's behavior, the more they feel fundamentally empty inside, and the more they need to pursue control over others. You can't fix a power void within yourself by accumulating and exercising power over others. You just can't. Ask Bill Clinton - he rose to the heights of power over others, and still couldn't quiet that fundamental insecurity inside himself.

So, let other people do what they want. When they ACTUALLY hurt you, call them on it and make sure that there are consequences. But call them on the actual action that hurt you, not everything else in their life that created the conditions under which they took that action.

Sorry to get all Sigmund Freud up in here, but you know ... :lmao:

Very, very well said.

It seems to me that the important, fundamental issue gets lost in all of the discussion about whether or not marijuana is harmful - whether or not it has negative long term affects on your health or mental acuity - whether or not it is addictive. I couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, is or isn't - I don't choose to use it because I haven't figured out anything that it will add to my life, so I don't need to consider its side effects. Those people who do think it adds something to their lives - they can worry about what its effects are or aren't.
[snip]
Sorry to get all Sigmund Freud up in here, but you know ... :lmao:

:cheers:
Good response.

Those are also instances of drug use. Not illegal, but not "it's a plant not a drug" either.

What's the point of bringing out that the plant is a plant? Does that change the effects of the drug within the plant? Is caffeine illegal? Is THC?

My point is:

Why is it illegal?

The government deemed it illegal - I understand that.

What was the impetus?

Because of health issues?

Hundreds of thousands of people die each year because of smoking tobacco. The same can be said for alcohol use.

Studies done years ago by the government claimed that it's harmful. Have you seen/read about the studies. The studies have been debunked many times.

Was it deemed illegal because it's harmful to society?

If it's harmful to society how can it be that alcohol use is still legal?

I personally feel that tobacco and alcohol is far more dangerous to society than smoking a simple plant.

The problem you have with it is because of moral issues.

That's your problem...

It seems to me that the important, fundamental issue gets lost in all of the discussion about whether or not marijuana is harmful - whether or not it has negative long term affects on your health or mental acuity - whether or not it is addictive. I couldn't care less if it does or doesn't, is or isn't - I don't choose to use it because I haven't figured out anything that it will add to my life, so I don't need to consider its side effects. Those people who do think it adds something to their lives - they can worry about what its effects are or aren't.

The important issue is that people should have the right to do what they want, except to the extent that their actions directly and inappropriately harm others. You know - freedom. The argument that drug usage causes people to commit real crimes doesn't hold water. Making bad financial decisions might make someone more desperate for money and thus more likely to steal. Dating a hot woman might make you more likely to get insanely jealous if she breaks up with you, and thus more likely to kill someone in a jealous rage. Moving into a ghetto might make it more likely that your children are exposed to bad elements and thus end up being criminals when they grow up. All kinds of decisions that people make create an increased or diminished likelihood that they will commit certain crimes.

You don't restrict those decisions, you punish the crimes. If someone steals money to support their drug habit, then execute them for theft (or if you're not so inclined, throw them in jail for a decade or so). If someone does their job more poorly because they are stoned all the time, then their boss can fire them. If we think that people's diminished health or increased incompetence hurts the society in general, because societies socialist policies place the burden for their failings on everyone else - then we should get rid of those socialist policies so that other people aren't burdened by their failings. Both the left and the right need to stop telling people what they can and can't do. It's just ridiculous.

The driving force for these nanny state policies is this - a lot of people have internal and systemic insecurities stemming from the underlying feeling that they don't have as much control over their own lives as they would like. Invariably and subconsciously, they believe that exercising more control over other's lives will make up for that sickening feeling. Well, it won't. The more people try to control other people's behavior, the more they feel fundamentally empty inside, and the more they need to pursue control over others. You can't fix a power void within yourself by accumulating and exercising power over others. You just can't. Ask Bill Clinton - he rose to the heights of power over others, and still couldn't quiet that fundamental insecurity inside himself.

So, let other people do what they want. When they ACTUALLY hurt you, call them on it and make sure that there are consequences. But call them on the actual action that hurt you, not everything else in their life that created the conditions under which they took that action.

Sorry to get all Sigmund Freud up in here, but you know ... :lmao:What you're describing is enforcing personal responsibility. We currently pay people to not work, to produce children out of wedlock, etc. We have, as a
society, legislated out of the equation personal responsibility.

If you can get unemployment laws to the point where someone who is unemployed because they cannot stop toking up, or because they killed your brother through their drug induced negligence, etc., to not receive benefits, I'd be for that.

Make it so government sponsored hospitals do not HAVE to see and treat someone for drug related injuries/medical conditions; well, I'd be for that, too.

Until then, it's a societal decision, not a personal one.


However, would you, in the name of freedom, make ALL drugs available without prescription? Would you have PCP on the shelf next to the Flinstones Vitamins? If not, where would YOU draw the line? And, is it possible that, as a society, we've already drawn that line?

My point is:

Why is it illegal?

The government deemed it illegal - I understand that.

What was the impetus?

Because of health issues?

Hundreds of thousands of people die each year because of smoking tobacco. The same can be said for alcohol use.

Studies done years ago by the government claimed that it's harmful. Have you seen/read about the studies. The studies have been debunked many times.

Was it deemed illegal because it's harmful to society?

If it's harmful to society how can it be that alcohol use is still legal?

I personally feel that tobacco and alcohol is far more dangerous to society than smoking a simple plant.

The problem you have with it is because of moral issues.

That's your problem...

You should look up the petitions (actually, they are more serious than petitions...but I can't think of the term...may be a type of bill or something?) about the reclassification of marijuana as a lower class drug. It's quite interesting when you can't even really fathom how they came to the conclusion it should be classified on the same level as herion and cocaine.

My point is:

Why is it illegal?

The government deemed it illegal - I understand that.

What was the impetus?

Because of health issues?

Hundreds of thousands of people die each year because of smoking tobacco. The same can be said for alcohol use.

Studies done years ago by the government claimed that it's harmful. Have you seen/read about the studies. The studies have been debunked many times.

Was it deemed illegal because it's harmful to society?

If it's harmful to society how can it be that alcohol use is still legal?

I personally feel that tobacco and alcohol is far more dangerous to society than smoking a simple plant.

The problem you have with it is because of moral issues.

That's your problem...The moral issue I have with it is using when it's illegal. If it were legal, I would find it just plain stupid, not immoral.

I suspect that it's illegal because of the long term health effects, the negative societal effects, etc. I didn't make it illegal, so I can't speak to all of the issues involved in causing it to be so.

Alcohol does not have the tangible long term effects (ie, the lack of mental clarity days and weeks after long term usage), and uh, tobacco is also a plant used in pretty much the same way. Why smoking is still legal is, frankly, beyond me - except that people don't lose their ability to think and act responsibly while utilizing tobacco.

What you're describing is enforcing personal responsibility. We currently pay people to not work, to produce children out of wedlock, etc. We have, as a
society, legislated out of the equation personal responsibility.


Like alcohol use?

You have to decide for yourself whether you've had too much to drink. You have to decide for yourself whether or not you can get behind that wheel and drive. You have to decide for yourself if you rather sit at home and get wasted off of alcohol etc.


If you can get unemployment laws to the point where someone who is unemployed because they cannot stop toking up, or because they killed your brother through their drug induced negligence, etc., to not receive benefits, I'd be for that.


Are there unemployment laws for alcoholics? Because they can't stop drinking, because they killed your brother through their alcohol induced negligence...


Make it so government sponsored hospitals do not HAVE to see and treat someone for drug related injuries/medical conditions; well, I'd be for that, too.


How about we do this for alcoholics as well?



However, would you, in the name of freedom, make ALL drugs available without prescription? Would you have PCP on the shelf next to the Flinstones Vitamins? If not, where would YOU draw the line? And, is it possible that, as a society, we've already drawn that line?

If you don't know the difference between PCP, heroin, and marijuana then I don't know what to tell you.

Is it possible as a society that we are ready to redraw that line? There are already movements/organizations that are trying to decriminalize marijuana use.

Are they wrong? Are they misguided?

I suspect that it's illegal because of the long term health effects, the negative societal effects, etc. I didn't make it illegal, so I can't speak to all of the issues involved in causing it to be so.


I see.

The same can be said for alcohol. Kidney failure. Liver disease etc.


Alcohol does not have the tangible long term effects (ie, the lack of mental clarity days and weeks after long term usage), and uh, tobacco is also a plant used in pretty much the same way. Why smoking is still legal is, frankly, beyond me - except that people don't lose their ability to think and act responsibly while utilizing tobacco.

Alcohol does not have long term effects?!?!

Are you actually sitting there believing what you're typing?

You are aware of something called.. Um.. Alcoholism...

And, you do realize that people lose their ability to think and act responsibly while utilizing alcohol, right?

I also refute your claim that people lose their ability to think and act responsibly when smoking marijuana.

I reject that entirely...

I also refute your claim that people lose their ability to think and act responsibly when smoking marijuana.

I reject that entirely...

Trust me.
It doesn't apply to everyone, but certainly to some people :killingme
It could be said, though, that since it doesn't happen to everyone...it has to do with the person taking it, and others shouldn't be punished because some people act/think different on the drug.

Like alcohol use?

You have to decide for yourself whether you've had too much to drink. You have to decide for yourself whether or not you can get behind that wheel and drive. You have to decide for yourself if you rather sit at home and get wasted off of alcohol etc.



Are there unemployment laws for alcoholics? Because they can't stop drinking, because they killed your brother through their alcohol induced negligence...



How about we do this for alcoholics as well? It seems you have more of a problem with alcohol than pot.If you don't know the difference between PCP, heroin, and marijuana then I don't know what to tell you.

Is it possible as a society that we are ready to redraw that line? There are already movements/organizations that are trying to decriminalize marijuana use.

Are they wrong? Are they misguided?I know the differences.

However, there are similarities. That was the point of the question.

I see.

The same can be said for alcohol. Kidney failure. Liver disease etc.Agreed. Point?Alcohol does not have long term effects?!?!

Are you actually sitting there believing what you're typing?

You are aware of something called.. Um.. Alcoholism...

And, you do realize that people lose their ability to think and act responsibly while utilizing alcohol, right?

I also refute your claim that people lose their ability to think and act responsibly when smoking marijuana.

I reject that entirely...Note that the effects of pot last long after one stops using the pot - if they've been long time consistent users. Other than the physical effects (not the reasoning, mental effects) this is true of alcohol, too. But, the argument "but Johnny does it with his stuff, too" isn't a reasonable argument. Just because something is legal does not mean everything that has a few similarities should also be legal.

You can refute and reject the truth, but it's the truth either way.

It seems you have more of a problem with alcohol than pot.


Actually I don't.

I was using your horrible arguments as a counter.


I know the differences.

However, there are similarities. That was the point of the question.

Really you know the differences?

Why would you use the argument of having PCP next to the Flintstones vitamins then?

Trust me.
It doesn't apply to everyone, but certainly to some people :killingme
It could be said, though, that since it doesn't happen to everyone...it has to do with the person taking it, and others shouldn't be punished because some people act/think different on the drug.So, if anyone exists that morphine isn't as good a pain killer for, morphine shouldn't require a prescription for use?

What you're describing is enforcing personal responsibility. We currently pay people to not work, to produce children out of wedlock, etc. We have, as a
society, legislated out of the equation personal responsibility.

If you can get unemployment laws to the point where someone who is unemployed because they cannot stop toking up, or because they killed your brother through their drug induced negligence, etc., to not receive benefits, I'd be for that.

Make it so government sponsored hospitals do not HAVE to see and treat someone for drug related injuries/medical conditions; well, I'd be for that, too.

Until then, it's a societal decision, not a personal one.

That's why we should focus on the real transgressions - those socialist policies you speak of. They are the problem, and we should stop using those fundamental societal mistakes as excuses to make further societal mistakes (e.g. limiting personal freedoms). We should take all of the energy we expend promoting the response policies and use that energy to decry the causal policies.

However, would you, in the name of freedom, make ALL drugs available without prescription? Would you have PCP on the shelf next to the Flinstones Vitamins? If not, where would YOU draw the line? And, is it possible that, as a society, we've already drawn that line?

In a nutshell - yes. If a store wanted to sell PCP, so be it. In fact, if they wanted to hang up a sign that read,


'If you want to ruin your life, destroy your brain, and basically turn yourself into a useless, barely functioning life form - you should give this stuff a try!'


I wouldn't seek to prohibit them from doing so. If the market decides that the store's behavior is irresponsible, then the market can judge them accordingly and the store will suffer the consequences.

As for those who would choose to use 'drugs' - let them meet whatever fate nature would have them meet.

Nature's processes (i.e. natural selection, as they are often generically referred to) have been so successful in developing this highly aware, highly intelligent (in relative terms), highly capable creature that is the human. They work so well - how can we humans be so arrogant that we would try to limit the ability of those processes to continue 'improving' us, when we wouldn't even exist without them? (If some people's beliefs would have them substitute God, or anything else for the concept of nature's processes, then the point is still the same.) Why do we rebel against the very forces that created us to begin with?

As far as where I draw the line - I draw it as close to not interfering with the the processes of nature as I can. In other words, I don't want society to make any more rules than it really has to. Basically, if we have to question whether or not we should have a particular rule, then we probably shouldn't have that particular rule.

Agreed. Point?Note that the effects of pot last long after one stops using the pot - if they've been long time consistent users. Other than the physical effects (not the reasoning, mental effects) this is true of alcohol, too. But, the argument "but Johnny does it with his stuff, too" isn't a reasonable argument. Just because something is legal does not mean everything that has a few similarities should also be legal.

You can refute and reject the truth, but it's the truth either way.

I can refute and reject falsities because they are false.


Note that the effects of pot last long after one stops using the pot - if they've been long time consistent users.


I know people who have smoked for tens of years that are at the highest positions one can attain in their jobs. Jobs that require incredible levels of mental acuity.

False is still false...

Actually I don't.

I was using your horrible arguments as a counter.:confused: I'm not arguing that alcohol's legality has anyhthing to do with pot's legality.....Really you know the differences?

Why would you use the argument of having PCP next to the Flintstones vitamins then?Because, the totality of Tilted's argument was that it boils down to each person's freedom. So, my question was - where does that freedom end? See, it's a matter of degrees - if A is okay, then why not B? Similar to your alcohol argument, except that both PCP and pot are illegal, so they fall into the same category.

:roflmao::killingme:roflmao::killingme:roflmao:

Silly Sheriff, you can't charge someone with "Possession of marijuana" off just a picture. :lol:

What a maroon. :loser:

:lol:

Don't be so sure that the sheriff can't charge him. As I understand criminal law, to issue an arrest warrant or to issue a criminal summons, the sheriff would only need "probable cause." He already has a picture and a partial confession; if he can get at least one statement from one or more of the many witnesses that were presumably present to verify that Phelps was smoking MJ in that pic in the sheriff's jurisdiction, that would constitute probable cause in my opinion. Of course, if the case were to get to court, the standard of proof for the prosecutor would rise to "beyond reasonable doubt," in which case the charge may be dropped or the suspect may be acquitted.

So, if anyone exists that morphine isn't as good a pain killer for, morphine shouldn't require a prescription for use?

What is the correlation you are trying to use? You lost me.
Pot isn't even used as prescription in some states :shrug:

That's why we should focus on the real transgressions - those socialist policies you speak of. They are the problem, and we should stop using those fundamental societal mistakes as excuses to make further societal mistakes (e.g. limiting personal freedoms). We should take all of the energy we expend promoting the response policies and use that energy to decry the causal policies.I'm all for this.
In a nutshell - yes.

As far as where I draw the line - I draw it as close to not interfering with the the processes of nature as I can. In other words, I don't want society to make any more rules than it really has to. Basically, if we have to question whether or not we should have a particular rule, then we probably shouldn't have that particular rule.I'm not as much for this. I think the unintentional consequences to the rest of society would outweigh the inherent freedom.

I'm not arguing that alcohol's legality has anyhthing to do with pot's legality


No. You're not arguing that. You are trying to set parameters on how YOU would like things to be if marijuana were legal.

I'm stating that these things are already in place - by substituting alcohol for marijuana.

To me marijuana should have the same classification as alcohol.


.....Because, the totality of Tilted's argument was that it boils down to each person's freedom. So, my question was - where does that freedom end? See, it's a matter of degrees - if A is okay, then why not B? Similar to your alcohol argument, except that both PCP and pot are illegal, so they fall into the same category.

And I'm stating that the powers that be - those who made marijuana use illegal - were misguided or had other agendas.

Marijuana should have never been put in the same category as PCP etc.