Pocket Plane Group

Miscellany, Inc. => Ensign First Class Blather => Topic started by: Da_venom on January 08, 2006, 05:54:36 PM

Title: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 08, 2006, 05:54:36 PM
I was wondering how you guys like weed?

I think it great stuff:p

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Andyr on January 08, 2006, 05:59:14 PM
If you're stoned, why are you posting on the forum? Go outside, socialise, and look at the stars/buy a kebab...
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 08, 2006, 06:30:00 PM
i wish i could me hungry :D

but it was more about what people think of weed and such
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 08, 2006, 07:05:07 PM
Smoking weed is for people who are boring.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 08, 2006, 07:10:44 PM
Personally, I'm against weeding.  I feel that since the weeds grow as easily as, well, weeds that it would be a lot easier to maintain them than grass.  Don't get me wrong, I like grass just fine, but anything that expensive and time consuming should really just be avoided.  I'd rather just have a beer and avoid the hassle.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 08, 2006, 07:33:36 PM
Quote
anything that expensive and time consuming should really just be avoided
   But cannabis isn't actually expensive, only outlawing it makes it such
   And besides, isn't it much more Vegan than say, coffee? It's a question, Drew
   And also, as a rule guys are much better when they are high, than when they are drunk
   And thirdly, it cures a lot of diseases
   And fourthly, don't forget Bob Dylan and the likes
   And fifthly, don't forget Bob Marley and the rest of his fellows
   Not that I'm a pothead myself, no
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: devSin on January 08, 2006, 07:44:37 PM
this is my obligatory sigh.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 08, 2006, 08:25:35 PM
   But cannabis isn't actually expensive, only outlawing it makes it such
Marijuana won't be legalised until a plausible way exists to give field sobriety tests for it.  Let's face it.  A roadside piss test is just not an option.
   
Quote
And besides, isn't it much more Vegan than say, coffee? It's a question, Drew
One item can not be more vegan than another.  It is either vegan or it isn't.  Besides, I drink fair trade coffee.
   
Quote
And also, as a rule guys are much better when they are high, than when they are drunk
Personal taste.  I prefer my men drunk.  ;)
   
Quote
And thirdly, it cures a lot of diseases
Marijuana doesn't actually cure any diseases.  It can, however, make the symptoms of chronic illness much more bearable.  Marinol (a marijuana derivative) was developed to actually do the same thing and is available for perscription already.  And you don't have to smoke it.  Admittedly, this takes away some of the fun, but is a much better option, from a medical perspective.  Of course, you could always cook your weed into a brownie......

Just so no one takes this the wrong way, I want to mention that I actually do think marijuana should be legalized.  But they've gotta find a way to do road tests for it first.

EDITED SO IT WOULD BE EASIER TO READ AND ALSO TO BE FUNNIER
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on January 08, 2006, 09:37:08 PM
It can, however, make the symptoms of chronic illness much more bearable. Marinol (a marijuana derivative) was developed to actually do the same thing and is available for perscription already.

Here in Canada, where we're forward thinking and socially responsible and whatnot, medicinal marijuana is grown in a government run place in Manitoba (that's a province), just outside Winnipeg (a city in that province).  Apparently the best marijuana is grown in British Columbia (province), aka "BC Bud" (not a city).  Anyhoo, after the program had been around for a bit, the government began receiving complaints from the patients enrolled in it.  The pot was too dry, or tasted bad, or whatever.  They wanted the good stuff.

So yeah, there you have it.  A funny story about a pro-government sector of the populace complaining about how the government runs things.

As for my opinion, weed is a waste of an evening.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 08, 2006, 09:49:43 PM
I'm ambivalent to Ms. Mary Jane.  I do think that people who consider anything marijuana-related is automatically cool and/or funny are lame. 
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Andyr on January 09, 2006, 02:50:29 AM
I'm ambivalent to Ms. Mary Jane.  I do think that people who consider anything marijuana-related is automatically cool and/or funny are lame. 

Yeah; a place for everything, and all that jazz.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 09, 2006, 02:56:12 AM
Well have any of you complainers tried it yourself? before you even judge?
cause I used it and liked it. But there is no chance that i'm gonna be addicted too it. and some soft drugs are legal here(Holland)

people can only look at the bad effect of drugs that makes me sick! people who never tried it and say all drugs is bad..
when i'm really really dressed and i smoke a joint then i'm relaxed for the evening so i can perform a bit better the next day (less stressed)

Drugs have some good effect, but the worst effect is that you get addicted quickly esp on hard drugs.. and that's what they show in media..
you know that in every hospital they use drugs..? just admit it a world can't do without drugs anymore so why block it? just make rules.


this is the same thing about alcohol...first every was saying bad blah blah en now it's legalised with rules..you think they won't do this with drugs too?
(not that i'm a fan of drugs myself, I do know however too look at the other side) which lacks in so many people

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 09, 2006, 03:10:34 AM
A friend of mine loves marijuana. Uses it every day. He's one of those people that has an adverse reaction to it. When he first started smoking at 18 he was outgoing, funny, spontaneous, caring and interested in others. Now he is a depressed paranoid 40 year old who can't maintain relationships or jobs and who keeps pissing off his fellow band members because he is completely unreliable when stoned. He's not too worried about the future because the toxins in dope are much stronger than just tobacco, and he's a prime target for lung cancer now. And he doesn't really have the attention span for such thoughts anyway.

No-one said they haven't tried it. Perhaps they all know someone like my friend. Any drug can swallow you. That's when they stop being fun.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 09, 2006, 05:06:25 AM
Well have any of you complainers tried it yourself? before you even judge?

Do I need to be in a car accident before I understand that it is better to wear a seatbelt than not? Do I need to be hit by a truck to know that would be a painful experience?

No, I have never tried smoking marijuana, used any other drugs, nor have I ever drank alcohol. I don't have any kind of desire to alter my mental state just to have "fun" or to avoid problems that would still be there whenever I recovered from that altered state of mind. Whatever "benefits" gained from using such substances are, in my opinion, dwarfed by the possible consequences. It's not in any way a necessary risk to take. Smoking cigarettes seems even infinitely more pointless to me.



Edit: Removed a line that was left from venom's post that made my reply look very funny.

Quote
people can only look at the bad effect of drugs that makes me sick!

Drugs have ruined the lives of countless people and affect more than those who stupidly choose to take the drugs.

Quote
people who never tried it and say all drugs is bad..

There is sufficient information to show that drugs can have an incredibly negative affect on people's lives. We're not talking about escargot here, so the "don't knock it 'til you try it" mantra is garbage.

Quote
Drugs have some good effect

That's subjective. You might gain temporary pleasure from using those drugs, but you're physically poisoning yourself.

Quote
you know that in every hospital they use drugs..? just admit it a world can't do without drugs anymore so why block it? just make rules.

Street drugs and their uses are not the same as medical drugs and their uses, even if some of them share the same origin. The world would be just fine without street drugs.


Quote
this is the same thing about alcohol...first every was saying bad blah blah en now it's legalised with rules..you think they won't do this with drugs too?

Drew has made a good case for why it is not a good idea to legalize recreational use of marijuana just yet. I think the usage of alcohol is stupid, too, and harmful enough to merit prohibition.

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 09, 2006, 05:32:25 AM
this is the same thing about alcohol...first every was saying bad blah blah en now it's legalised with rules..you think they won't do this with drugs too?

Erm, what? When alchohol was first discovered all those thousands of years ago, I doubt anyone thought it was bad, especially as it was soon discovered that it was an excellent way to kill water-borne diseases.  Even if anyone way back then did object to alchohol, the concept of law was most likely either non-existent or in its infancy at the time.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 09, 2006, 05:33:53 AM
Oh, and I forgot to say, that while dope is great as a shared drug, it's not much fun on your own. No one to laugh with. The ritual of preparation seems to be fun for many, but I still find pouring a beer or glass of wine less drama. And dope really only works if you're a smoker - baking takes a lot of the biff out of it. It's also a hassle to grow secretly - hydroponically doesn't leave much room in your wardrobe and the light keeps you awake at night, and in the garden -well, there's just too many people looking over your back fence to be entirely comfortable with that. Also, drying it out is a pain, causing wonderfully strong aromas that are difficult to explain to the neighbours. Never liked the idea of dealers. It's also difficult to smoke in public. So all in all booze is easier. And just as much fun to share.

*All of this wisdom comes from the combined experience of many friends, acquaintances and housemates. Not mine alone.*  ;)



 
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 09, 2006, 05:43:33 AM
If anyone wants to try out an entirely legal drug, I recommend salvia (made, believe it or not, from a type of sage).  It caused me to have an out-of-body experience (I literally felt as though I was floating around my house), but I understand it can have all sorts of bizarre hallucinogenic effects on people.  In fact, apparently it's the most powerful naturally occuring hallucinogenic.

EDIT: oh, and salvia also has no proven health risks, and its not addictive either.

EDIT 2: actually, there are a few countries it is illegal in, such as Australia.  It's still perfectly legal in the UK and all but a handful of American states.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: CoM_Solaufein on January 09, 2006, 07:22:07 AM
It never did anything to me but waste my money.  ::)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 09, 2006, 11:07:12 AM
Well have any of you complainers tried it yourself? before you even judge?

Do I need to be in a car accident before I understand that it is better to wear a seatbelt than not? Do I need to be hit by a truck to know that would be a painful experience?

well that's a rather strange comparision isn't it?

No, I have never tried smoking marijuana, used any other drugs, nor have I ever drank alcohol. I don't have any kind of desire to alter my mental state just to have "fun" or to avoid problems that would still be there whenever I recovered from that altered state of mind. Whatever "benefits" gained from using such substances are, in my opinion, dwarfed by the possible consequences. It's not in any way a necessary risk to take. Smoking cigarettes seems even infinitely more pointless to me.



cause I used it and liked it. But there is no chance that i'm gonna be addicted too it. and some soft drugs are legal here(Holland)

Quote
people can only look at the bad effect of drugs that makes me sick!

Drugs have ruined the lives of countless people and affect more than those who stupidly choose to take the drugs.

that's why i say people only look at the bad effects easy too target negative things. same thing like alcohol they only look at the bad effects. Alcohol has some good effects like good for the blood and such.
but you only look at the drug addicts. those are easy too target cause they are everywhere. so i would advice you too try it out and then say something about and maybe read a bit more about drugs and alcohol before u say general things (which are mostly the negative things)

Quote
people who never tried it and say all drugs is bad..

There is sufficient information to show that drugs can have an incredibly negative affect on people's lives. We're not talking about escargot here, so the "don't knock it 'til you try it" mantra is garbage.
like i said before you only look at the drug addicts. soft drugs isn't that addictive. Hard drugs however is but that is also a thing that people mess with

Quote
Drugs have some good effect

That's subjective. You might gain temporary pleasure from using those drugs, but you're physically poisoning yourself.
well someone who has smoked before and then started using weed. actually purified his lungs of the smoke
wow that's temporaily pleasure?

if your real stressed and don't know what to do. and smoke a join too relax and later on start doing things 1 by 1 that not good?

Quote
you know that in every hospital they use drugs..? just admit it a world can't do without drugs anymore so why block it? just make rules.

Street drugs and their uses are not the same as medical drugs and their uses, even if some of them share the same origin. The world would be just fine without street drugs.

ofcourse their uses are the same
too drug yourself -.- the only difference that the hopsital does it when needed and people for pleasure



Quote
this is the same thing about alcohol...first every was saying bad blah blah en now it's legalised with rules..you think they won't do this with drugs too?

Drew has made a good case for why it is not a good idea to legalize recreational use of marijuana just yet. I think the usage of alcohol is stupid, too, and harmful enough to merit prohibition.

It can be done, easily but most people don't know when too quit and get addicted. politics should make better rules and help people protect themselves. But you don't think of that don't you? you oly think of those addicted people who fuck up their life.

i don't smoke or smokes joints often and i'm feeling fine.
my life is stabile social and on work so wtf is the problem?
learn to control yourself and know what your doing before u use something
that lacks in so much people..




Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 09, 2006, 11:44:33 AM
Apparently pot leads to bad spelling and poor grammar.  :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Andyr on January 09, 2006, 11:47:10 AM
Well have any of you complainers tried it yourself? before you even judge?
cause I used it and liked it. But there is no chance that i'm gonna be addicted too it. and some soft drugs are legal here(Holland)

Yep, though I don't any more.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: jester on January 09, 2006, 12:24:07 PM
Sorry when I read stoned, I had to think: Jehova! Jehova!, but sadly this is just about Afro-American Afghans (You are not supposed to say black right?). well nevermind, carry on.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Imrahil on January 09, 2006, 01:16:09 PM
but you only look at the drug addicts. those are easy too target cause they are everywhere. so i would advice you too try it out and then say something about and maybe read a bit more about drugs and alcohol before u say general things (which are mostly the negative things)

That's an excellent idea.  I think I'll go try some crack so I can see if it's bad or not.  Then maybe I'll set myself on fire, since I can't be sure that wouldn't suck until I try it.  Then maybe I'll go read up on jumping out of a 20-story building, on the off-chance I might really enjoy it (after I get done reading The Lottery, of course).

I'm hoping to get back to you with my research later today, but these damn drug addicts are everywhere.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: LizDiggory on January 09, 2006, 01:45:28 PM
I'd like to quote someone on this subject.

(http://www2.visalia.k12.ca.us/greenacres/ga_webpages/staff/images/wpe14.gif)

Just listen to Mr. Mackey, mmmkay?


Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 09, 2006, 01:51:23 PM
all scared of trying
how can u talk about something when you haven't tried it out for yourself?

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 09, 2006, 02:51:51 PM
If you read the posts in this thread, the majority of the people have stated that they *have* tried it, and found it to be not-so-wonderful for various reasons.

I have no problems with the use of marijuana per sé, but I think it is overrated and that most people who brag about using it are generally just seeking attention and trying to "look cool."
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: jester on January 09, 2006, 03:18:31 PM
Been there done that.

http://www.wimp.com/stoned/
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on January 09, 2006, 03:19:07 PM
I quit drinking and drugs over 9 years ago. I do slightly regret my inability to have a nice glass of wine with dinner or a beer or two with friends, but really good friends are understanding. The smell of pot now generally makes me gag, though it always kinda did if I wasn't smoking.

I know people who can be quite sensible in their substance use, but I decided a long time ago that there are some boundaries I'd better not test.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 09, 2006, 03:22:09 PM
well that's a rather strange comparision isn't it?

No, it is not. I do not have to experience something to know it is bad.

Quote
that's why i say people only look at the bad effects easy too target negative things. same thing like alcohol they only look at the bad effects. Alcohol has some good effects like good for the blood and such.

I don't know if the point initially skipped completely over your head, or what, but the negatives are that many, many peoples lives are COMPLETELY ruined by these things. A few hours of emotional numbness or the giggles, when it is not even a necessary risk, is hardly a valid trade.

Quote
like i said before you only look at the drug addicts. soft drugs isn't that addictive. Hard drugs however is but that is also a thing that people mess with

There is a decent enough amount of people who believe that marijuana is a bridge to other, far more harmful substances for me to not touch the stuff.

Quote
well someone who has smoked before and then started using weed. actually purified his lungs of the smoke
wow that's temporaily pleasure?

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

Quote
if your real stressed and don't know what to do. and smoke a join too relax and later on start doing things 1 by 1 that not good?

You are ignoring the negative effects. I have addressed the "positives" and have stated that they are entirely unevenly balanced.

Quote
ofcourse their uses are the same
too drug yourself -.- the only difference that the hopsital does it when needed and people for pleasure

If you don't see the difference, well...maybe you should stop smoking so much dope.

Quote
It can be done, easily but most people don't know when too quit and get addicted. politics should make better rules and help people protect themselves. But you don't think of that don't you? you oly think of those addicted people who fuck up their life.

Society should waste resources by taking care of people who add an unnecessary risk to their lives? Of course I think about the addicts. They aren't fucking menial cases.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: devSin on January 09, 2006, 03:36:16 PM
It can be done, easily but most people don't know when too quit and get addicted. politics should make better rules and help people protect themselves. But you don't think of that don't you? you oly think of those addicted people who fuck up their life.
Society should waste resources by taking care of people who add an unnecessary risk to their lives? Of course I think about the addicts. They aren't fucking menial cases.
I smell new PPG ketch phras. Tink about the childrun? Fuck tat! Thik abot the addicks.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 09, 2006, 03:52:58 PM
I smell new PPG ketch phras. Tink about the childrun? Fuck tat! Thik abot the addicks.

lol
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 09, 2006, 04:20:29 PM
I only smoked 5 times. I won't do more I think
but that not problem
i'm same guy as before I smoked weed. Glad i've done th experience, but i'm sure i don't want too continue with the shit..

Besides i don't smoke at all
and as for alcohol i only drink on parties

the negative things start too happen when u use too much
and that not good. people don't have the will too stop and stay in a trance form
and let them slip from reality and that is bad

i'm not a fan of drugs myself yet i know why some people use it.
but lot's of stress and lot's of pressure can make u do bad things that are more pleasure than anything else
if goverment would make a good rule for that then only the good effects would come out

but that is same foreverything
never use too much
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 09, 2006, 04:22:36 PM
k
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 09, 2006, 04:39:45 PM
Wow duuuuude this is like totally bogus.

Mary Jane is ok but I prefer things from the Opiate famly.  :D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 09, 2006, 04:44:32 PM
hehe
just don't smoke too much  ::) ::)
i know my m8es do ;)

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 09, 2006, 07:35:24 PM
I wish I could say marijuana should be legal as people can make judgements for themselves and stop before they "ruin their lives" and all that, but.. Most people can't.
Well, they can, but they choose not to, and all that garbage.

I've smoked some marijuana but never really took it very far. It's fun and all that, but not any more fun than anything else I could do. And I just prefer being sober over intoxication. Mainly because once I have one single paranoid thought while tripping, it ruins my whole trip, and all I can think about is all the different ways I might break my legs or forget how to breathe, or some stupid crap like that.

A lot of people do only look at "well, X many people have completely screwed up their lives, so whatever substance it is that they used should be illegal" and it bugs me too. But not really for the same reason as it did Da Venom, or whoever it is that can't type all that well and seems a bit drugged out of their mind. It would be nice if people would just think about things before they get in too deep. But most don't, and so drugs get a bad reputation and whatnot.
Then one would argue (probably Joe (not an insult!)) with "Well, isn't the fact that the drug CAN do these bad things to the body enough to warrant the illegalization of the drug?"
Well, I don't think it is. If you take a whole lot of alcohol, Advil, whatever, you're in for a bad visit to the hospital. Or the morgue. My point is people should.. Just stop being so damn stupid..

And please keep in mind that there are in fact reasons for using drugs other than being "cool" and temporarily relieving stress. Believe it or not, people actually do enjoy the drug just for the drug, just like people enjoy video games, movies, books, whatever. They actually do enjoy it.

My mind is fried and I'm probably not making sense.
I am completely sober, I have been for over a year, and I've never done much of anything anyway. Never been drunk, been high on weed a few times, and that is all. I'm just a very, very strange person who will ramble on for hours and hours and then get sidetracked by a passing butterfly.

The end.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 09, 2006, 07:57:58 PM
Regarding weed....we already know it isn't really any more harmful to the body than alcohol.  The real difference between alcohol and MJ is that MJ carries a mild hallucinogenic effect, but the effect is so mild it's barely worth mentioning.  Assuming that the logistics of law enforcement surrounding the issue were worked out, there really isn't any compelling reason to criminalize marijuana while keeping alcohol legal.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 09, 2006, 08:04:24 PM
Quote
Last dance with Mary Jane, one more time to kill the pain.
I feel summer creepin' in and I'm tired of this town again.
Tom Petty "Last Dance with Mary Jane"
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 09, 2006, 08:13:42 PM
Regarding weed....we already know it isn't really any more harmful to the body than alcohol.  The real difference between alcohol and MJ is that MJ carries a mild hallucinogenic effect, but the effect is so mild it's barely worth mentioning.  Assuming that the logistics of law enforcement surrounding the issue were worked out, there really isn't any compelling reason to criminalize marijuana while keeping alcohol legal.

I agree.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: glain on January 09, 2006, 08:48:39 PM
Quote
I smell new PPG ketch phras. Tink about the childrun? F**k tat! Thik abot the addicks.


Apparently pot leads to bad spelling and poor grammar.  :)

Glad I wasn't the only one thinking this.  ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 09, 2006, 08:56:42 PM
Nonsense. You see things much more clearly when you are chasing the dragon.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 10, 2006, 12:27:58 AM
@Jester
Quote
[...] this is just about Afro-American Afghans (You are not supposed to say black right?)
  Yes, we are. Like Shaq O'Neal is black, eg. Just the official term is 'African American' (e.g. in ID's)

@Icelus
  What does this message 'k' mean?

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on January 10, 2006, 01:55:26 AM
k is short for ok, which is short for okay, which is a statement of agreement or acceptance
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 10, 2006, 04:12:25 AM
The real difference between alcohol and MJ is that MJ carries a mild hallucinogenic effect, but the effect is so mild it's barely worth mentioning. 

Mind you, the same is true of f.ex bananas :).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 10, 2006, 05:03:39 AM
Like I said......barely worth mentioning.  ;D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: SimDing0™ on January 10, 2006, 09:18:25 AM
Whether or not drugs are bad blah blah blah, I feel compelled to point out that whatever you're rolling, smoking is still vile.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 10, 2006, 05:52:18 PM
You don't have to smoke it, Sim.  Cooking it into a brownie is a viable method, as well.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 10, 2006, 05:56:48 PM
Not if you want it to retain it's strength. Or so I've, uh, heard.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 10, 2006, 06:07:23 PM
Hash brownies.  :D

Go take a trip by eating some mushrooms. See things in a whole different light.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 10, 2006, 06:16:08 PM
You could always, uh, eat more to compensate. ::)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 10, 2006, 06:19:30 PM
Ah, but mushrooms could develop schizophrenia (more likely if it runs in the family, and in my case, it does) which is reason enough for me not to try it. And it can cause lots of paranoia and what not, which I'd rather stay away from, and the whole concept of being completely drugged out and not being able to "turn it off" at will bugs me.

I'm a nutjob when I'm sober, anyway.

Though none of that seems enough to make it illegal.
Anyone else have any ideas?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 10, 2006, 06:38:43 PM
I think the essentially confusing thing about mood-altering drugs is that if you take them when you are depressed to cheer yourself up it makes everything worse when the effects wear off; and if you take them when you are feeling good (which is unnecessary when you think about it) afterwards you feel like crap, making the whole process purposeless. If they came in prescription doses there would be less of a problem, as eventually you could work out the dose that works -but considering how difficult it is for some people taking drugs for bi-polar disorder, depression etc to achieve this in order to function, it seems like a lot of trouble to go to for something termed "recreational".

I have always wondered why people start smoking - smoke smells bad, it gives you cancer, and nicotine withdrawal is an absolut bastard of a process. So umm, why start? What is the purpose of the activity? To make your breath smell bad and stain your teeth? It's not like it tastes good.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 10, 2006, 06:50:40 PM
I agree with your little tidbit on cigarettes. I do think they taste good, though. But that certainly isn't enough to warrant all of the things you listed, among others.
And let's not forget how expensive it is.

Just so you know, I don't smoke cigarettes. I was just stating that they taste good.
One must make these kinds of clarifications when one lives in a place like Overland Park (though it won't be this way for much longer).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 10, 2006, 06:55:31 PM
Ah, but mushrooms could develop schizophrenia (more likely if it runs in the family, and in my case, it does) which is reason enough for me not to try it. And it can cause lots of paranoia and what not, which I'd rather stay away from, and the whole concept of being completely drugged out and not being able to "turn it off" at will bugs me.

I'm a nutjob when I'm sober, anyway.

Though none of that seems enough to make it illegal.
Anyone else have any ideas?
Taking hallucigens probably depends on your state of mind at teh time you take them. I wouldn't touch them now, I would probably have a bad trip.

Vicodin and Xanax I take are legit. I take them for "problems" I have.

My favorite is Sister M. I could lose myself in that. Good thing it's expensive, to make it's use sparingly and you don't run the chance of addiction.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 10, 2006, 07:01:36 PM
@Icelus
  What does this message 'k' mean?
Well, first Mr. venom seemed to be saying that pot was wonderous and that everyone who hasn't tried it was akin to a dillhole.
Then he posted that it was "shit" and he wouldn't do it anymore.

Seemed confusing to me, so the "k" was shorthand for "alrighty, then."
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 10, 2006, 07:12:36 PM
Quote
Taking hallucigens probably depends on your state of mind at teh time you take them. I wouldn't touch them now, I would probably have a bad trip.
Same with me.

I've never even heard of Sister M.. ???
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 10, 2006, 07:15:13 PM
morphine.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 10, 2006, 07:17:35 PM
Oh. Right.
'Course.

Anyone ever try LSD?
I know far too many people who have dropped acid to even be in the same room as the stuff.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 10, 2006, 07:31:07 PM
LSD will set your mind free.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 10, 2006, 07:35:13 PM
So I've heard.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Regullus on January 10, 2006, 11:31:03 PM
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17754159%255E663,00.html

 I realize this is off topic but I thought it was interesting. Who said, "Moderation in all things?" Oh right, Ghrey. :pirate
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 11, 2006, 02:02:36 AM
Regullus, you have a positive penchant for papers that flirt with the gutter. The Herald Sun! Please!!
It's a great article - impressive pictures, (are we sure that is the journalist at 39? My, how very YOUNG she looks) but so many sad gaps. Do the same 'girls' go out drinking every night, 5 days a week? Do they all drink that much every night? Hmm, it's open to doubt. For starters, how do they afford it?
The article is a little unspecific about why the journalist is drinking such a large amount. "Keeping up with the 'girls'?" Is that all of them combined? We all know youth is much more resilient than umm, the more experienced members of the population. And are these girls a representative group or are they unusual? I may be biased by my experience as the daughter of a 73 year old alcoholic. If that article is true, he would have been dead 40 years ago. Along with all of his mates. None of whom have passed away from grog-related causes. I think that article is more about the character Nicholas Cage played in 'Leaving Los Vegas' than heavy drinkers.

Sorry. I hate the Herald Sun. To be fair, as much as I relished the shellacking "Super-Size Me" gave to MacDonald's, I would have found the results more compelling if he had eaten a Big Mac once a week. Or as many times as is statistically average. Nobody eats Maccas 3 times a day. Tainted data.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 11, 2006, 05:59:52 AM
@Icelus
  What does this message 'k' mean?
Well, first Mr. venom seemed to be saying that pot was wonderous and that everyone who hasn't tried it was akin to a dillhole.
Then he posted that it was "shit" and he wouldn't do it anymore.

Seemed confusing to me, so the "k" was shorthand for "alrighty, then."

what I meant was
wtihout having used it don't judge
I have tried it was nice and such
but I won't use more, Don't want too be an addict.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 11, 2006, 07:01:21 AM
That article actually originates from the Daily Mail, a British paper:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=372102&in_page_id=1770

It seems the Herald Sun re-worded parts and cut several chunks out (some pretty large), though.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 07:16:38 AM

I can't really be bothered to read the rest of this thread, so if this has been tackled already, please forgive me :)

Quote
anything that expensive and time consuming should really just be avoided

   And thirdly, it cures a lot of diseases


Lu, it cures absolutely nothing :)  Although some studies have shown cannabis to be effective as pain relief, there's no evidence to suggest that it actually has healing properties.  Moreover, cannabis has been proven to increase the chances of developing throat and tongues cancers exponentially, which I think is a much more important point to make! :)
And before anyone says "but it's better for you than tobacco", as far as tar content goes, one joint is the equivalent of smoking 40 cigarrettes.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Regullus on January 11, 2006, 08:00:43 AM
Regullus, you have a positive penchant for papers that flirt with the gutter. It's a great article - impressive pictures, (are we sure that is the journalist at 39? My, how very YOUNG she looks) but so many sad gaps.

I read Fark daily. I couldn't agree with you more and the thought of Supersize Me came to mind as did the attendent flaws as I read the article. But I loved the before and after pics.

 

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: SimDing0™ on January 11, 2006, 08:10:25 AM
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17754159%255E663,00.html

 I realize this is off topic but I thought it was interesting. Who said, "Moderation in all things?" Oh right, Ghrey. :pirate
am i going to die??
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 11, 2006, 08:21:12 AM
The problem with weed is it has a real obvious smell to it, it's a dead give away. You get that smell on you and your clothes.

I can tell what you've been smoking.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on January 11, 2006, 08:25:11 AM
Tobacco is fairly pungent too. Also, I'll just mention here, people tend to smoke a lot more cigarettes than marijuana. I dunno if they're in similar cancerous proportions, but still
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 11, 2006, 08:27:21 AM
Cigarettes suck. I can't stand the smell. I had to endure that when I used to work at the bar/club years ago.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on January 11, 2006, 11:06:21 AM
am i going to die??

Well, yes, eventually. Not necessarily from drinking though.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 11, 2006, 11:08:33 AM
@Alarielle
   Some people say it cures brains, sometimes. I'm trying to imagine the world we would be living in, had there been no '60s, hmm... Not that I lived in one before 1976 though
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 11, 2006, 11:38:26 AM
Sorry. I hate the Herald Sun. To be fair, as much as I relished the shellacking "Super-Size Me" gave to MacDonald's, I would have found the results more compelling if he had eaten a Big Mac once a week. Or as many times as is statistically average. Nobody eats Maccas 3 times a day. Tainted data.

"Super-Size Me" is one of the biggest bullshit movies in cinema history along with Joel Schumer's Batman films and Michael Moore's films. If anyone had to see that movie to see that eating fast food for every meal would be unhealthy, well then those people are stupid motherfuckers. I'm sorry, they have to be.

And as you alluded to, Eral, few people, if any, eat at McDonald's or any other fast food establishment for every single meal.

And now McDonald's has sheepishly removed their "Super-Size" option in an attempt to appease the nanny-staters.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 11, 2006, 11:44:58 AM
Super-size actually varied from country to country; for example, the British super-size was the equivalent of the American large :).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 11, 2006, 12:22:01 PM
lol
a small one in america is a big one in europe :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 01:57:13 PM
@Alarielle
   Some people say it cures brains, sometimes. I'm trying to imagine the world we would be living in, had there been no '60s, hmm... Not that I lived in one before 1976 though

Cures brains?  As in the having of one?  People who say that are invariably smokers themselves, rationalising :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 11, 2006, 02:01:31 PM
Super-size actually varied from country to country; for example, the British super-size was the equivalent of the American large :).

Yes, I know this. But it is stupid to criticize fast food businesses for selling unhealthy food in large quantities just because people are willing to buy it that way.

If we want to get obesity in control, start with the schools. Throw out the soda machines and discontinue serving unhealthy food frequently. Stress dietary practices and personal exercise in PE instead of just gauging how many sit-ups a person can do.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 03:50:59 PM
Quote
And before anyone says "but it's better for you than tobacco", as far as tar content goes, one joint is the equivalent of smoking 40 cigarrettes.

Every time I hear this I want to stick a burning cigarette in someones eyeball. That is a bullshit figure.

All people roll all sorts of sized joiints. Short and fat. Long and fat. Really long and a little fat. Short and skinny. How long is long? How skinny is skinny? You won't see any of those important details in those bullshit quotes :)

Eating a bowl of cereal is the equivelant of eating steak.
Pasta is fattening.
Etc, etc.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on January 11, 2006, 04:18:05 PM
Hey, whoever said that moderation thing rocks.  Some weed, some vegan cookies, some cigars, some booze, some sit-ups, some pasta, some tattooing, some cycling, some salad with some dressing, some hiking, some vegetating in front of a computer screen, and you've got yourself one hell of a decent standard of living.  At least that's what I tell myself.  Oh, and add more pasta, because carbs are delicious.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 04:20:11 PM
Quote
And before anyone says "but it's better for you than tobacco", as far as tar content goes, one joint is the equivalent of smoking 40 cigarrettes.

Every time I hear this I want to stick a burning cigarette in someones eyeball. That is a bullshit figure.

All people roll all sorts of sized joiints. Short and fat. Long and fat. Really long and a little fat. Short and skinny. How long is long? How skinny is skinny? You won't see any of those important details in those bullshit quotes :)

Eating a bowl of cereal is the equivelant of eating steak.
Pasta is fattening.
Etc, etc.

Ok, it was badly phrased.  Ounce for ounce, an amount of cannabis is 40 times as tar rich as the same quantity of tobacco.  Happy? :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 04:38:16 PM
40:1? I'd like to see your source for that figure. Not because I don't belive you, but because I've heard so many similar statistics... five to one, ten to one, 20 to one... and now 40 to one. It all depends on how biased your researcher is or how uninformed the writer of the article. According to a study done at Berkley in the late 70s, marijuana contains one and a half times the carcinogens that tobacco does. And then, if you add in Jon's point about the amount of pot in a joint compared with tobacco in a cigarette, and also take into account that the average pot smoker will smoke pot maybe three times a week wheras an average smoker might smoke half a pack to a pack a day... the cancer argument really doesn't hold water. Not one case of cancer has ever been proven to have been caused by cannabis.

Another anti-pot argument that is pretty common - "I know someone/heard of someone/ read an article about someone who was a healthy, happy, productive member of society until they sampled the evil MARIJUANA and now they are crazed, burned out dope fiends with no life and a low sperm count!!!"

So let me tell you my counter story... when I first moved to the states from Canada in freshman year, I was really depressed. I hadn't made any friends, I hated my school, etc etc... all that angsty teenager stuff. My grades were at around a 2.5 GPA. Towards the end of sophomore year, I started smoking pot (well, started regularly smoking pot, anyway... about twice a week. Before that it was like once every six months or something) Lo and behold, if you look at my eleventh grade transcripts, my grades jumped to a 3.8!! I've maintained that standard all through Junior and senior year. Therefore, you can logically deduce that smoking pot helps grades.

Umm... no.

What really happened is I made some friends, (some of whom through my smoking buddies, as a matter of fact. So in that sense, I guess pot does help) switched to a much cooler school, got involved in theatre and generally became a happier person. That reflects on my grades. Cause and effect are much more complicated than pot=bad. Just because you selectively choose what facts about a case to tell, doesn't mean a thing about the larger picture. So your friend smoked pot and had a hard life? His personality didn't have anything to do with that, did it? Nah...

I'm just warming up. I can keep the pro-pot arguments coming for another hour or so.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 11, 2006, 04:43:13 PM
Quote
Not one case of cancer has ever been proven to have been caused by cannabis.

Do you mean lung cancer?  If so, surely that can't be true.  If you mean cancer in general, see throat and tongue cancer.  Cannabis can and has caused many cases of that.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 04:45:40 PM
I have always wondered why people start smoking - smoke smells bad, it gives you cancer, and nicotine withdrawal is an absolut bastard of a process. So umm, why start? What is the purpose of the activity? To make your breath smell bad and stain your teeth? It's not like it tastes good.

That depends on your opinion. I really enjoy cigarrette smoke. I do it in moderation because it is so bad for you (my moderation = two or three times a month, tops) It calms you down, gives you a light buzz, and feels pleasant in your mouth and lungs. If you don't like it, don't do it. More power to you.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 04:47:02 PM
I have yet to find a credible source reporting on a proven cancer case caused by marijuana. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 11, 2006, 04:55:41 PM
Live fast, die young.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 04:56:21 PM
Lezz:   :) :)

Alarielle: No, you're still wrong :-\
Quote
Ok, it was badly phrased.  Ounce for ounce, an amount of cannabis is 40 times as tar rich as the same quantity of tobacco.  Happy? Smiley

Firstly, there are an unlimited amount of statements like that, just with different numbers. I've seen 60, 25, 20, 15, and zero. Oh, and forty. I've rarely seen 60, but I've still seen it, so I just thought I would lay it out.

I only ever see 40 (the highest, except of course sixty, which is incredibly rare, I think) from major anti-drug fanatics; health class, posters on school walls, basically anything school-related, and all of the cheesy sites that preach for page after page (all the while trying desperately to relate to the latest trends of 13-17 year olds) about how terrible drugs are no matter how you look at it.

I mainly hear zero from extreme druggies who if ever told me that it's raining outside, I'd have to go look out a window.

Anyway, my point is it's a crap quote, though if you (or anyone, really) can find any reliable proof about that quote, I'd really be interested is checking that out.

In any cancer arguments: everyone should bear in mind that smoking anything at all is bad for you and can cause cancer, decrease lung capacity, the whole shabang. Marijuana may be worse, I don't know. But everyone knows cigarettes are really bad.. I still can't get my head around how many people smoke those things.
Well, I can, but all of the reasons I've heard are very stupid and do not at all balance out the negative effects.
Except one old friend, whose reason was "I don't know, I just like it."  And I know she didn't do it because of her friends or any of that crap so I respect her decision very much. She knows what it does but just does it anyway.   I.. Just don't see it.
It's sad watching her slowly wither away.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 05:06:44 PM
Jon:

I'm not going to argue with you, because, surprisingly enough, I do not have the resources at my disposal to test this theory.  I'm just going by information that my pathology/biochemistry/oncology lecturers provide me with, along with that of my medical textbooks.  If it's incorrect, then fine.

I'm not denying that there are minor medical benefits from taking the drug, I'm merely pointing out that there are a lot of dangers as well. :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 05:13:22 PM
Yeah, there are some dangers. That's (a small reason) why I don't smoke it. And I get really paranoid at the first worried though, which many never come at all, or just seconds after my third or fourth hit.
In a crowded room, I'm the guy who's always higher than everyone else. Always.
Though when I did smoke (and if I ever partake in the wonderful company of good ol' Mary Jane again) I prefered to smoke alone, or with one other person. Maybe two. But that's not terribly important.

Quote
I'm not going to argue with you, because, surprisingly enough, I do not have the resources at my disposal to test this theory.  I'm just going by information that my pathology/biochemistry/oncology lecturers provide me with, along with that of my medical textbooks.  If it's incorrect, then fine.

Yeah, that's just what I was talking about. You can only expect biased information from schools.
Hopefully not from all schools.. But you know what I mean.


Alarielle, I want you to know that I immensely enjoyed having this completely friendly and productive conversation with you.
Isn't it nice when two people of opposing standpoints can converse with eachother without anger, hate, and violence?
 :-*
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 11, 2006, 05:14:42 PM
Alarielle, I want you to know that I immensely enjoyed having this completely friendly and productive conversation with you.
Isn't it nice when two people of opposing standpoints can converse with eachother without anger, hate, and violence?
 :-*
You obviously didn't read her diary, then.  :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 05:16:09 PM
Diary..?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 11, 2006, 05:17:58 PM
Quote
I'm not going to argue with you, because, surprisingly enough, I do not have the resources at my disposal to test this theory.  I'm just going by information that my pathology/biochemistry/oncology lecturers provide me with, along with that of my medical textbooks.  If it's incorrect, then fine.

Yeah, that's just what I was talking about. You can only expect biased information from schools.
Hopefully not from all schools.. But you know what I mean.

They don't tend to lie to you at medical school or you'd end up as a really shit doctor.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 05:19:26 PM
Medical school?
I just automatically assumed highschool or something..  Uh.. :-[
My bad ???
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 05:20:33 PM

Yeah, that's just what I was talking about. You can only expect biased information from schools.
Hopefully not from all schools.. But you know what I mean.

Uh, you don't get biased information at medical school. :)  That would make the treatment of patients somewhat difficult, working with invented facts.

Quote
Alarielle, I want you to know that I immensely enjoyed having this completely friendly and productive conversation with you.
Isn't it nice when two people of opposing standpoints can converse with eachother without anger, hate, and violence?

Um... are you being sarcastic?  Because I'm not angry, hateful and I'm pretty sure I haven't stabbed you :)  I hope you're not being sarcastic, because it would be nice to believe that one can actually have a discussion in EFCB without it turning into some kind of argument.


Edit: oh, people posted while I was writing this, so it might be a bit pointless :P
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 05:28:50 PM
No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Nothing but humble honesty there, and my sad attempt at a bit of humour.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 05:30:34 PM
Ok, then good :)  Wasn't sure, but it's pretty late here, so the brain is starting to shut down. ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 05:31:48 PM
Even with the brain fully awake, I can still see why you'd wonder wether or not I was being sarcastic.

Twisted times, these are.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 11, 2006, 05:32:42 PM
Alarielle, I want you to know that I immensely enjoyed having this completely friendly and productive conversation with you.
Isn't it nice when two people of opposing standpoints can converse with eachother without anger, hate, and violence?
 :-*
You obviously didn't read her diary, then. :)
Diary of a madwomen. ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 05:34:58 PM
Okay, lets play another round of "anti-stoner logic games". (I am having so much fun here)

"People who smoke pot are brainless jerks. I know all these people who smoke pot, and they're useless potheads who irritate me. Therefore, pot smoking makes people act like jerks."

Well, I know a couple of girls who eat potatoes. Love the damn things. And they eat potatoes all the time. Like, we're talking serious spud-o-philes here. And I don't like them (the girls, not the potatoes). They are irritating. All they want to talk about is potatoes. Therefore, potatoes make people act like jerks.

Damn you, potatoes!

You see how that doesn't work? This country hates the potheads so much that they demonize them for making their own choices. Are we hurting anybody? No! So what exactly makes us so evil?

The following were all taken from this thread:
"Smoking weed is for people who are boring."
"Drugs have ruined the lives of countless people and affect more than those who stupidly choose to take the drugs."
"I'm hoping to get back to you with my research later today, but these damn drug addicts are everywhere."
"If you don't see the difference, well...maybe you should stop smoking so much dope"

This is nothing compared with the rest of the bull that pot smokers have to put up with from straight edges. Here's the thing: marijuana is a pastime, no different from any other pastime. Its a fun, social thing to do, sitting around with your buddies and rolling a joint. Some people really like it. Some people don't. Some people are afraid of the health problems (which, few and mild though they may be, still exist) Some people get freaked out at the idea of losing control. All of these are OK! You don't hear stoners saying that all straight edges are uptight whiners, do you? Well, why  is it okay for straight edges to call stoners lazy useless bums? To each his own, I say. Who am I hurting by sitting around on my back deck with my brother and smoking a joint while I stare at the stars? Hm?

This is the extent to which the government and health teachers have twisted and moulded the minds of young people until they all think the same. Four legs good, two legs bad. Nothing is black and white. All stoners aren't useless screwups, and all straight edges aren't perfect, upstanding citizens.

Do you like roller coasters? Sex? Massages? Why? Because they give you a pleasant or exhiliarating sensation. There is nothing about preferring the sensation of these mainstream pastimes that makes you morally superior to me for enjoying the sensation of marijuana.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 05:40:20 PM
"Cures brains?  As in the having of one?  People who say that are invariably smokers themselves, rationalising"

This is nothing compared with the rest of the bull that pot smokers have to put up with from straight edges. Here's the thing: marijuana is a pastime, no different from any other pastime. Its a fun, social thing to do, sitting around with your buddies and rolling a joint. Some people really like it. Some people don't. Some people are afraid of the health problems (which, few and mild though they may be, still exist) Some people get freaked out at the idea of losing control. All of these are OK! You don't hear stoners saying that all straight edges are uptight whiners, do you? Well, why  is it okay for straight edges to call stoners lazy useless bums? To each his own, I say. Who am I hurting by sitting around on my back deck with my brother and smoking a joint while I stare at the stars? Hm?

This is the extent to which the government and health teachers have twisted and moulded the minds of young people until they all think the same. Four legs good, two legs bad. Nothing is black and white. All stoners aren't useless screwups, and all straight edges aren't perfect, upstanding citizens.

Do you like roller coasters? Sex? Massages? Why? Because they give you a pleasant or exhiliarating sensation. There is nothing about preferring the sensation of these mainstream pastimes that makes you morally superior to me for enjoying the sensation of marijuana.

Can I just ask that you don't use my comment to illustrate your point?  I never said that anyone who chooses to smoke cannabis is useless, a screwup or any of the other things you picked upon and nor do I believe that.  I have a problem with the drug and what it does to people, not the people themselves. :)

Thanks.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 05:45:42 PM
It was clearly implied. You said that those who smoke marijuana don't have brains, and that those who believe it has good affects are just "invariably smokers themselves, rationalising". Why should we need to rationalize what we do, unless we are rationalizing our own flaws?

I will take the comment down, if you like, but my point still stands.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 05:55:02 PM
The point is what's important. Let's not start a fight.. Please? :)

Lezz, I agree with you. You would have had one hell of a time in my health class last semester ::)

We talked a bit about marijuana for a little less than a week, maybe a week, and these kids..   Well, I'm sure we all can figure it out. Even when we were discussing any other drug.

And, to my slight misfortune, I know a lot more about drugs than they do. What they fail to realize is, they're all morons. That's about as  simple (and as kind) as it can be put. And not just in reagards to drugs.
Anyway, if knowledge could be represented with numbers, these kids would be at about -3, -4. Some exceptionally bright ones may be at -2, and the really specialy ones may even be able to pull a -1 out of their ass.

Anyway, in reards to the drugs we covered (and other "bad" things)m I'm about a five or six - all of this out of ten.

So, they assumed I am both a teen-age mastermind, and an extreme drug addict. I guess knowing a bit about what marijuana does to you, knowing about date rape, coke, meth, etc makes you a regular (ab)user of the drugs.     Except date rape which isn't a drug. Obiously.

This was kind of a pointless post.. 
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 11, 2006, 05:55:50 PM
The clear implication you're seeing was actually just a play on Lu's omission in her original post, where she said "cures brains" without qualifying her statement with some kind of ailment.  I found this amusing and decided to throw in a suggestion.  If you found this offensive, I'm sorry, it wasn't intended to be.
Regarding rationalisation, I don't think the last sentence was unfair because it's generally true.  Smokers, drinkers - in fact anyone who indulges in some kind of potentially unhealthy activity - often feel the need to make a point of the better aspects of said activity.  I'm not saying this is a bad thing.  Ok? :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 06:00:50 PM
Fair enough. I might have read it differently than you intended it to be read.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 11, 2006, 06:29:51 PM
Excerpted from The national institute of health (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html):

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(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.


Excerpted from the DEA (http://www.dea.gov/ongoing/marijuana.html).

There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

I was, however, unable to find anything which corroborates or disagrees with this from the NIH.  The information I was able to gather from the NIH is certainly good enough, though.  The argument that marijuana is healthier than cigarettes appears to be out of step with current research.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 11, 2006, 06:40:22 PM
You got me there.  I stand corrected.
That's actually some pretty interesting information.

This just isn't my day..
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Imrahil on January 11, 2006, 06:42:31 PM
The following were all taken from this thread:
...
"I'm hoping to get back to you with my research later today, but these damn drug addicts are everywhere."

I agree with Alarielle about you needing to get your tongue-in-cheek detector checked.  I quoted da_venom's post which said "but you only look at the drug addicts. those are easy too target cause they are everywhere."  My only real objection was to the "if you haven't tried it you can't possibly say it's bad" line of reasoning.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 11, 2006, 06:43:34 PM
Dudes you're like ruining my buzz with all of this stuff.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on January 11, 2006, 07:12:55 PM
I'd just like to throw in here that the proportion of carcinogens like tar in marijuana as opposed to tobacco probably depends somewhat on how it was grown. Just a thought, but I know that other plants contain different amounts of chemicals based on soil, water, light conditions, and their original genetic makeup, so it does make sense.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Discord on January 11, 2006, 07:20:01 PM
Excerpted from The national institute of health (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html):


In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.


You don't take even a third as many "puffs" when you smoke marijuana regularly as when you smoke cigarettes regularly (by my estimation). This is pretty much what I was saying before. Marijuana does contain more carcinogens in equal amounts with tobacco, but since you don't take equal amounts of Marijuana as you do cigarettes, the point is moot.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 11, 2006, 08:00:22 PM
Lezz, I discussed my friend who has been adversely affected by his marijuana use not to illustrate that all drugs are bad, but to suggest that addictions- especially long-term ones - can have a negative effect on you. There is information to suggest dope increases feelings of depression and paranoia - he is one illustrative case. Obviously not everyone experiences these effects to such a degree. Same as people were adversely affected by Prozac, while others benefited. My point is addiction makes it harder to gauge if your life is going down the toilet. This is a discussion of personal experiences, not a diatribe against users.

Thanks for describing why you like smoking - it was an honest question, not a "I can't believe people are so stupid" put-down. I smoked for a month when I was very young, teenage rebellion, but I didn't get it. It just wasn't that enjoyable to me. I have asked Mr.FPS but he describes what appear to be the effects of nicotine, not smoke.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 11, 2006, 08:20:50 PM
Excerpted from The national institute of health (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html):


In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.


You don't take even a third as many "puffs" when you smoke marijuana regularly as when you smoke cigarettes regularly (by my estimation). This is pretty much what I was saying before. Marijuana does contain more carcinogens in equal amounts with tobacco, but since you don't take equal amounts of Marijuana as you do cigarettes, the point is moot.
You are more than welcome to take up that matter with the highly trained medical professionals at the National Institute of Health who I quoted verbatim.

Also, studies  have found that people who smoke 5 joints a week are doing just as badly as folks who smoke a pack a day.  I'm thinking it has something to do with the fact that you don't hold cigarette smoke in your lungs for 30 seconds before releasing it.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 11, 2006, 08:25:57 PM
People should play it smart so they don't get addicted. You take something on a daily basis, you're going to get addicted to it. Stagger what you take so you don't get addicted to it. .
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 11, 2006, 08:27:47 PM
Drug abuse is a habit.  If you regularly abuse drugs (even if the drug constantly changes) you run a high chance of becoming addicted.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 11, 2006, 11:29:53 PM
Quote
Drug abuse is a habit.  If you regularly abuse drugs (even if the drug constantly changes) you run a high chance of becoming addicted
  Drew, you're going off topic. We are talking pot here, not drugs

@Alarielle
Quote
Lu, it cures absolutely nothing
   It cures a lot, they just teach you crap in medical schools, i.e. government-loyal crap

Quote
Cures brains?  As in the having of one?  People who say that are invariably smokers themselves, rationalising
   As if say, Bob Marley had no other stuff to attend to but rationalize
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 11, 2006, 11:35:15 PM
@Alarielle
Quote
Lu, it cures absolutely nothing
   It cures a lot, they just teach you crap in medical schools, i.e. government-loyal crap
Wait... are you claiming that you know more than established medical schools and scientific societies?  I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just not going to be so arrogant as to claim that I know more than, you know, PhDs and such.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 11, 2006, 11:47:34 PM
  Alarielle isn't PhD, I take
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 12, 2006, 12:11:45 AM
  Save that a PhD in say, poetry may not know say, the multiplication table. And I know it, yes, sir!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 12, 2006, 12:22:04 AM
Lu:  The president lied about Iraq.  But he isn't a doctor, and he doesn't get to set american medical policy  Organizations like the AMA and the NIH aren't lying when they say weed doesn't cure diseases.  If it really did such a thing, the medical community would embrace it.  Doctor's already prescribe Opiates and Amphetamines for certain conditions, so they would certainly embrace marijuana if it had any real medical use.   Marijuana has, in fact, been found to increase risk of certain cancers and other lung ailments.  I think you are being a bit unreasonable, here.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on January 12, 2006, 12:33:21 AM
No, but her lectureres probably are :P

Kindly name 5 diseases cured by Marijuana
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 12, 2006, 01:24:04 AM
  Have you read it, guys?
Quote
40:1? I'd like to see your source for that figure. Not because I don't belive you, but because I've heard so many similar statistics... five to one, ten to one, 20 to one... and now 40 to one. It all depends on how biased your researcher is or how uninformed the writer of the article. According to a study done at Berkley in the late 70s, marijuana contains one and a half times the carcinogens that tobacco does
   Drew, Veloxyll, am I the only one who has to be reasonable or shut up? Of course not. So are Lezz and Jon, I take. All the others are allowed to talk whatever they want without being reasonable

Quote
Kindly name 5 diseases cured by Marijuana
  I'd rather shut up until I have my questions kindly (and reasonably) answered first

 PS. I only want to repeat that I'm not a pothead myself. May have even had more bottles of beer than reefers in my life
 PPS. Luv
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 12, 2006, 01:27:49 AM
She's being taught over this and the next 4 years to be a doctor.  If they teach her stuff that's wrong she'll misdiagnose conditions and prescribe the wrong medication or other course of treatment.  It's utterly ridiculous to give her false information has she would just end up killing people.  The government and various media sources might lie or coverup information but a university training a doctor wouldn't.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 12, 2006, 02:22:01 AM
You are more than welcome to take up that matter with the highly trained medical professionals at the National Institute of Health who I quoted verbatim.

Also, studies  have found that people who smoke 5 joints a week are doing just as badly as folks who smoke a pack a day.  I'm thinking it has something to do with the fact that you don't hold cigarette smoke in your lungs for 30 seconds before releasing it.

I don't know whether it's the case in this instance, but the unfortunate thing is that a large proportion of studies of marijuana which produce negative results are funded by the tobacco industry...
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 12, 2006, 05:43:41 AM
@Lu:  You are not the only person I have respectfully disagreed with in the thread.  Read through and you will see that I have repeatedly disagreed with both John and Lezz.  I'm not singling you out, here.  I'm singling out the idea you suggested which is not supportable by any of the currently  available research (of which there are mountains of data) or anyone within the medical community.  I'm sorry if this offends you.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 12, 2006, 06:05:51 AM
  Alarielle isn't PhD, I take

This is a fair point, and no I am not.  However, I think you might find it useful to know that no one gets a PhD from attending medical school.  I will graduate with an MBChB. :)



@Alarielle
Quote
Lu, it cures absolutely nothing
   It cures a lot, they just teach you crap in medical schools, i.e. government-loyal crap

Quote
Cures brains?  As in the having of one?  People who say that are invariably smokers themselves, rationalising
   As if say, Bob Marley had no other stuff to attend to but rationalize

Lu, honestly, it doesn't *cure* diseases.  You're really using the wrong word.  It may alleviate symptoms, but that's not the same as curing the cause. :)

And Bob Marley?  I really don't care about him, but yeah, he really should have been thinking more about sun protection factors than cannabis.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 12, 2006, 07:16:53 AM
Quote
However, I think you might find it useful to know that no one gets a PhD from attending medical school.  I will graduate with an MBChB
  I already knew that you'd graduate with MBChB, Alarielle. Can you guess why I mentioned PhD instead?

Quote
And Bob Marley?  I really don't care about him, but yeah, he really should have been thinking more about sun protection factors than cannabis
   I don't think I understand the joke. But why do you bring up his name, if you don't care?

 @Veloxyll
Quote
No, but her lectureres probably are
   Veloxyll, please, have I ever mentioned my lectureres? Speaking about smth, or in this case someone you have
 not the slightest idea who they are, or even if they exist, isn't such a good idea, OK?

   OK, I've lately learned that it's wiser to ignore new questions until I have mine answered, but I'll be silly, once again. Here are some diseases that can be cured, if cannabis is used properly
   hypertonia
   asthma
   what do they call the opposite of hypertonia, when blood pressure is always too low?
   stupidity

  Can be smth else, but I'm not much into medicine
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: CoM_Solaufein on January 12, 2006, 07:39:31 AM
I never understood the continuation of taking drugs. Sure it's fun, cool and new when you're in high school but as you get older, what's the point? Are you trying to escape reality? If so that's a sad life you have there.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 12, 2006, 07:54:48 AM
Quote
You are not the only person I have respectfully disagreed with in the thread.
  Drew, it's not clear if 'you' means me, ie Lu (sorry if it means Nightmare):
Quote
Read through and you will see that I have repeatedly disagreed with both John and Lezz [...] I'm sorry if this offends you
  Strange that I recently mentioned both John and Lezz as well, is it not?
  And no, it doesn't offend me (sorry once again, Nightmare, if it was addressed to you)

  Btw, here's smth I can add to Nightmare's, IIRC (though girlish memory isn't smth to rely on, sure enough) Originally, campaign against marijuana was started in the '30s by companies that produced paper. The possibility of using cheap cannabis as the source for paper misliked them somehow, and their bosses had relatives/inlaws in the government, and they even started using the foreign word 'marijuana', to let people know how anti-American the stuff was

 @Melkor
   And 2 + 2 is smth, right?

  PS. We cool, guys/girls?

 EDITED> was 2 + 2 = 4
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 12, 2006, 09:50:59 AM
  The Dalai Lama was on TV a couple months ago, interviewed by Charlie Rose. Among other things His Holiness said, was smth kinda "I'm a man, first of all, and only secondly I'm a Buddhist monk"
  A while later I talked to an acquaintance who's a Greek Orthodox priest. To hold onto smth that I thought could be of interest to the padre, I mentioned the interview. The reply was kinda “Damn you, sinner, and damn your Buddhist pagans (not that I’m a Buddhist, btw - not that Lu’s a Buddhist, I mean), and damn them all, sinners and disbelievers, and you all will burn in Gehenna, unless I take care of your lost souls, blah blah blah”   
   I wonder what I’m talking about, this is definitely off-topic
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 12, 2006, 09:54:45 AM
Quote
No, but her lectureres probably are
   Veloxyll, please, have I ever mentioned my lectureres? Speaking about smth, or in this case someone you have
 not the slightest idea who they are, or even if they exist, isn't such a good idea, OK?

I think he meant Alarielle's lecturers, who I assume are all doctors.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 12, 2006, 10:07:38 AM
@Lu:  I made my initial post more clear.  Sorry. Also, none of the conditions you referred to as curable by marijuana actually are.  Marijuana is also known to exacerbate stupidity, not eliminate it.  Note that this doesn't mean I think marijuana shouldn't be legal.  I just think trying to assert easily disprovable things like this do nothing but diminish the credibility of those arguing for a more sane national drug policy.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 12, 2006, 10:14:31 AM

Quote
And Bob Marley?  I really don't care about him, but yeah, he really should have been thinking more about sun protection factors than cannabis
   I don't think I understand the joke. But why do you bring up his name, if you don't care?

Bob Marley died of a secondary tumour in his brain, having spread from the skin cancer he developed.  Hence sunblock :)

Quote
   OK, I've lately learned that it's wiser to ignore new questions until I have mine answered, but I'll be silly, once again. Here are some diseases that can be cured, if cannabis is used properly
   hypertonia
   asthma
   what do they call the opposite of hypertonia, when blood pressure is always too low?


Hypertonia is a state where muscle tone is too tight, essentially.  The opposite being hypotonia, which presents as a 'floppiness'.  Neither have anything to do with blood pressure.  That's hyper- and hypotension. :)

Again, cannabis acting as a muscle relaxant can alleviate the symptom of hypertonia, but not the cause (i.e. probable damage to the central nervous system).

So I'm agreeing with it's ability to help manage symptoms, but not the claim that it actively cures.  There is a difference.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 12, 2006, 11:02:50 AM
Quote
So I'm agreeing with it's ability to help manage symptoms, but not the claim that it actively cures. There is a difference
   OK, what I call diseases is actually symptoms. So what? Should it be illegal, to help manage symptoms? It’s a question (not that it’s very important to me though, don’t have problems with health - knock the wood)

@Grim Squeaker
  Somehow I still think that it was about my lecturers

@Drew
  OK, sir,  Mr. Andrew James Gibson, you are getting sillier when high, I’m getting smarter. Perhaps we both should start smoking stuff before posting, kinda getting closer intellectually
 Yours
   Alexandra Lu Zaremba (not that I mean any offense, just in case, and besides these full names look funny here)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 12, 2006, 11:13:12 AM
Quote
So I'm agreeing with it's ability to help manage symptoms, but not the claim that it actively cures. There is a difference
   OK, what I call diseases is actually symptoms. So what? Should it be illegal, to help manage symptoms? It’s a question (not that it’s very important to me though, don’t have problems with health - knock the wood)

I don't recall ever having mentioned the legality of the drug.  I really don't have an opinion either way, because I have no interest in ever taking it. :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on January 12, 2006, 04:01:32 PM
Interesting. I've never heard any of my doctors even mention cannabis for a treatment for my Asthma. If it's a muscle relaxant, then maybe it can clear up an attack. But good luck convincing an Asthmatic to inhale smoke when their having an attack.

And yeah, it alleviates symptoms, not cures. Prolly the reason for all the misunderstandings.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 12, 2006, 04:16:25 PM
There are (were?) a lot of things that I wanted to say, but by the time I got done reading everything I probably forgot them. Here goes.

Velly, I know three asmetics who smoke marijuana. They tell me that since they started smoking, their asthma has been much less of a problem.
Make of it what you will.

Drew, my name is Jon(athan), not John. For some reason the H always gets to me. Please, be more careful next time :)

She's being taught over this and the next 4 years to be a doctor. If they teach her stuff that's wrong she'll misdiagnose conditions and prescribe the wrong medication or other course of treatment. It's utterly ridiculous to give her false information has she would just end up killing people. The government and various media sources might lie or coverup information but a university training a doctor wouldn't.

Telling one lie doesn't mean telling a hundred. Saying "marijuana is bad, it should stay illegal, and it has no use medically" does not at all mean that those young aspiriring medical students are one day going to misdiagnose a patient when they come in for aches and pains, or anything at all.

I never understood the continuation of taking drugs. Sure it's fun, cool and new when you're in high school but as you get older, what's the point? Are you trying to escape reality? If so that's a sad life you have there.

I think I said in here some where but people really need to stop viewing drugs this way. At the least, stop viewing cannabis this way. People not only do it because it's trendy, but they could also do it for pure enjoyment, just the same as people read books, write stories, play video games, and play fetch with their dog.

There was more that I wanted to say but the Topic Summary only goes so far.

Edited to fix a problem with quotes, and to say that I think that's all I had in mind to say.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 12, 2006, 04:37:53 PM
I sincerely hope that no one actually thinks marijuana isn't bad for you. :-\
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 12, 2006, 04:44:19 PM
Unfortunately, pretty much everything is bad for you to some degree, even the air you breathe.  Fortunately, the degree is usually extremely low :).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 12, 2006, 04:51:03 PM
I think smoking marijuana can hardly be compared to reading, writing, and playing video games.

I would compare it to drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. I think it is sad that some people view the use of those things as a recreational activity in and of itself.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 12, 2006, 05:11:44 PM
Quote
Quote from: Grim Squeaker on Today at 07:27:49
She's being taught over this and the next 4 years to be a doctor. If they teach her stuff that's wrong she'll misdiagnose conditions and prescribe the wrong medication or other course of treatment. It's utterly ridiculous to give her false information has she would just end up killing people. The government and various media sources might lie or coverup information but a university training a doctor wouldn't.

Telling one lie doesn't mean telling a hundred. Saying "marijuana is bad, it should stay illegal, and it has no use medically" does not at all mean that those young aspiriring medical students are one day going to misdiagnose a patient when they come in for aches and pains, or anything at all.

I didn't say anyone said it was bad.  Nor did I say it had no medical use.  I said it cures nothing.  Two very different things.  All I get are the facts, good and bad and since everyone was evangelising so much about it, I thought I'd thrown in a few of the bad :)
As for legality?  See my statement above.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 12, 2006, 05:15:33 PM
Quote
Quote from: Grim Squeaker on Today at 07:27:49
She's being taught over this and the next 4 years to be a doctor. If they teach her stuff that's wrong she'll misdiagnose conditions and prescribe the wrong medication or other course of treatment. It's utterly ridiculous to give her false information has she would just end up killing people. The government and various media sources might lie or coverup information but a university training a doctor wouldn't.

Telling one lie doesn't mean telling a hundred. Saying "marijuana is bad, it should stay illegal, and it has no use medically" does not at all mean that those young aspiriring medical students are one day going to misdiagnose a patient when they come in for aches and pains, or anything at all.

I didn't say anyone said it was bad.  Nor did I say it had no medical use.  I said it cures nothing.  Two very different things.  All I get are the facts, good and bad and since everyone was evangelising so much about it, I thought I'd thrown in a few of the bad :)
As for legality?  See my statement above.

So... what are you trying to say??!  Are you saying that everyone who uses pot is a poophead and that maryjawanna is o-so-bad?  Or are you saying that "a toke a day keeps the doctor away"?   STOP TRYING TO CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, LOGIC, AND RATIONALE.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 12, 2006, 05:21:35 PM
I think smoking marijuana can hardly be compared to reading, writing, and playing video games.

Playing too many computer games - or just too much computer use in general - can be very bad for you indeed.  Repetitive Strain Injury (e.g. trigger finger and tendonitis) is probably the most obvious danger, but it can also cause lower back pain, damage to your upper back and neck, irritation and eventual damage to your eyes, etc.

A lot of people just think such things are just excuses for their parents/teachers/boss to whine and rant at them, but unfortunately they're actually real (first hand experience here), and these people do have a point ;).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 12, 2006, 05:57:57 PM
Playing too many computer games - or just too much computer use in general - can be very bad for you indeed.  Repetitive Strain Injury (e.g. trigger finger and tendonitis) is probably the most obvious danger, but it can also cause lower back pain, damage to your upper back and neck, irritation and eventual damage to your eyes, etc.

A lot of people just think such things are just excuses for their parents/teachers/boss to whine and rant at them, but unfortunately they're actually real (first hand experience here), and these people do have a point ;).

I don't recall making a distinction based on negative affects.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on January 12, 2006, 06:04:07 PM
Quote
Quote from: Grim Squeaker on Today at 07:27:49
She's being taught over this and the next 4 years to be a doctor. If they teach her stuff that's wrong she'll misdiagnose conditions and prescribe the wrong medication or other course of treatment. It's utterly ridiculous to give her false information has she would just end up killing people. The government and various media sources might lie or coverup information but a university training a doctor wouldn't.

Telling one lie doesn't mean telling a hundred. Saying "marijuana is bad, it should stay illegal, and it has no use medically" does not at all mean that those young aspiriring medical students are one day going to misdiagnose a patient when they come in for aches and pains, or anything at all.

I didn't say anyone said it was bad.  Nor did I say it had no medical use.  I said it cures nothing.  Two very different things.  All I get are the facts, good and bad and since everyone was evangelising so much about it, I thought I'd thrown in a few of the bad :)
As for legality?  See my statement above.

So... what are you trying to say??!  Are you saying that everyone who uses pot is a poophead and that maryjawanna is o-so-bad?  Or are you saying that "a toke a day keeps the doctor away"?   STOP TRYING TO CONFUSE ME WITH FACTS, LOGIC, AND RATIONALE.

Yes.  :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 12, 2006, 07:00:05 PM
Say yes to drugs. Free your mind, free your body.  :D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 12, 2006, 07:47:47 PM
lol, too some certain extend i agree ;)

anyway most people get addicted too much and then the shit happends..

the feeling is just very nice when your stressed or having much to do... then a time in space can be very nice..

It rejuvinates your mind for a while so u can work more..
and it's also very good if you have insomnia like me after one joint u get tired as hell and can sleep nicely ;)

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 12, 2006, 10:25:29 PM
And, of course, it is also a quality recreational activity for the happy, whole-hearted folks of the world, as well.
I'm sure you mean't to include that, but it slipped your mind - right, Venom? ;)

Say yes to drugs. Free your mind, free your body. :D

There are many other ways of freeing your mind and body :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 02:32:05 AM
I don't recall making a distinction based on negative affects.

You said that "smoking marijuana can hardly be compared to reading, writing, and playing video games." I was pointing out that, in terms of negative effects, yes these things can be compared.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 02:46:00 AM
I don't recall making a distinction based on negative affects.

You said that "smoking marijuana can hardly be compared to reading, writing, and playing video games." I was pointing out that, in terms of negative effects, yes these things can be compared.
Not very well.  Cancer and tendonitis are hardly equivalent.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 02:56:56 AM
Permanent damage to your eyesight or lower back is far worse than clinical depression (not to mention these things could lead to clinical depression anyway).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 03:08:57 AM
Still not worse than terminal cancer.  Try again.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 03:23:47 AM
If two things are comparable, it does not neccessarily mean they have a precisely equal effect or impact.

EDIT: Besides, whether cancer is worse than losing your eyesight or being in so much pain you can't even walk is a purely subjective opinion that differs from individual to individual, not an objective fact.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 03:25:56 AM
You are comparing apples to oranges here.  The comparison is simply not valid.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 03:27:32 AM
Harmful effects vs harmful effects.

Sorry, the comparison is apples to apples.  As you said, try again.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 03:45:07 AM
No one ever has, or will ever, die as a direct result of too much time in front of a computer.  You are playing semantics again.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 04:33:58 AM
I never said anyone will die as a result of too much time in front of a computer; harmful effects are still harmful effects, no matter whether they're fatal or not.  I'm afraid it's you who's playing semantics, and in fact your entire "marijuana is not comparable to computer usage" argument would appear to be based on semantics.

EDIT: actually, a handful of people *have* died as a direct result of too much time in front of a computer:
http://app1.chinadaily.com.cn/star/2003/0501/vo2-4.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_zdcgw/is_200309/ai_n9519207 (bottom two)
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6130643.html
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on January 13, 2006, 05:17:04 AM
Fatal effects > Harmful effects > Minor irritative effects > all.

Given the choice, most people would take crappy eyesight and a bad back over being dead.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 05:34:36 AM
As the above links show, over-use of computers can be fatal too.

Plus as your "most people" comment illustrates, whether it is worse to be dead or be blind/unable to walk is still just an opinion, not a fact.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 13, 2006, 06:07:57 AM
well everything is bad if you overextend the use of it...

that's why you must know yourself, your limits, capabiliites and such..
which most people don't know
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 13, 2006, 06:28:01 AM
You know, Da_venom, your post is much much nicer than mine. That red warning is so helpful sometimes, giving us a chance to ponder -should I really hit post?
Anyone who abhors violence should not read the following cautionary tale.


I heard a story about fatal computer use. A young English man, in the prime of his life, who sometimes made the error of making well, nonsensical statements along the lines that reading, writing and computer use is just as bad for your health as regular drug use, and then when anyone pointed out that this was an extremely stupid thing to say got shirty and insinuated those people were unreasonable and stupid, and one night he woke up to find his room filled with all the people he had ever flamed and they beat him to death with his own computer monitor. An autopsy revealed he had been forced to swallow the letters i a m r e l y d u b before his awful agonising death. A jury of authors, librarians and computer game creators found the forum members charged with the poor young man's untimely death "Not Guilty" on the grounds that someone should have done it years ago. And they all lived happily ever after.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 06:29:09 AM
Actually, NIGHTMARE, what you are talking about is being sedentary.  It is possible to spend too much time on the computer without being sedentary.  Or pushing your body well beyond what it is intended to handle.  (Your links are talking about 50 hour gaming marathons, for Christ's sake!)  With marijuana, there is a marked increase in the likelihood of a great many diseases, even when you are using it "sensibly"..   You are comparing 5 joints a week (about 5 hours time per week) to a lifetime of being sedentary.  You are comparing the hazards of somewhat minimal use of marijuana to such a high level of computer addiction that the person didn't sleep.  If I went on a 50 hour weed smoking binge I could die from that, too, you know.   The ammount of marijuana related hospitalisations has tripled since the 90's, you know.

EDIT: thank you, Eral, for pointing out how inane the assertions he is making are.  You beat me to the post and said it better than I did.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 06:54:34 AM
I heard a story about fatal computer use. A young English man, in the prime of his life, who sometimes made the error of making well, nonsensical statements along the lines that reading, writing and computer use is just as bad for your health as regular drug use,

I never said that it was "just as bad".  Please don't start twisting peoples' meanings again, I thought you'd gotten over that particular phase.

Quote
and insinuated those people were unreasonable and stupid

I did no such thing.  I know this may well amaze you, but human beingse are quite capable of having a discussion without having negative opinions of a person with a differing point of view.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 13, 2006, 06:56:37 AM
We know where you live NiGHTMARE. I can think of a lot more letters to make you swallow. Don't tempt me.

Drew: if the rumour that reading and writing can be fatal gets about, I'm going to have a hell of a time when school starts.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 06:58:03 AM
You are comparing 5 joints a week (about 5 hours time per week) to a lifetime of being sedentary.  You are comparing the hazards of somewhat minimal use of marijuana to such a high level of computer addiction that the person didn't sleep.  If I went on a 50 hour weed smoking binge I could die from that, too, you know.   The ammount of marijuana related hospitalisations has tripled since the 90's, you know.

These links were in direct reply to your "no one ever has, or will ever, die as a direct result of too much time in front of a computer." Marijuana and how much more harmful it is than computer usage is utterly irrelevant to to the fact that your comment was incorrect.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 07:06:42 AM
Actually, NIGHTMARE, the people you mentioned in the first link died of exhaustion.  It wouldn't have mattered if they were on a computer, watching TV, smoking joints, playing pnp, or masturbating for 50 hours.  They pushed their bodies beyond their physical capabilities (and had likely been doing it for a long time before that as well) and died.  The fact that their marathon was in front of a computer is just details.

No one in your second link died of too much time in front of a computer.  They were all killed violently.  Computer games were simply the cause of their arguments.

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 07:17:49 AM
By that logic, the fact someone's cancer was caused by smoking marijuana is also "just details".

As for the second link, look at what I wrote in brackets next to the link, then read it again.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 13, 2006, 07:22:02 AM
   Drew, does it really matter if a junkie dies of OD, or a drug dealer comes and kills him? The result is the same. Though the latter is much, much likelier, I guess
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 13, 2006, 07:29:56 AM
Drew, I'm afraid if you make any more responses encouraging NiGHTMARE to continue with this ridiculous argument -which would be funny if he wasn't SERIOUS- we will have to beat you to death with your computer too. Your children are young, and need their father. Do it for them.

If you have any regard for us at all, EDIT: Drew, you will in the future continue these discussions via PM. If you REALLY feel the need to discuss it. Though WHY you do I do NOT understand.  
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 07:47:13 AM
For the record, it was Joe and Drew who began this "ridiculous argument" , after deciding to pick apart a simple comment I made.

Who exactly are you to decide what is and is not a ridiculous argument anyway? You might want to take an ego check sometime.  Here's a hint: if you don't care about a subject being discussed in a thread, DON'T READ THAT THREAD ANY MORE.  For crying out loud, isn't that pretty obvious?  ::)

I would kindly ask *you* to take your exceptionally arrogant "what you have to say is irrelevant to me, therefore it must be irrelevant to everybody" comments to PM in future.  (Though expect any addressed to me to promptly get deleted.)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 13, 2006, 07:59:06 AM
You guys know how to ruin a perfectly good thread.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 13, 2006, 08:04:54 AM
Say yes to drugs. Free your mind, free your body. :D

There are many other ways of freeing your mind and body :)
Hot passionate sex. ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 13, 2006, 08:23:06 AM
Quote
You guys know how to ruin a perfectly good thread
  We can try to restore it, Blood Raven. For starters, can you tell me why Sister M, not the Horse?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 08:24:44 AM
This is my last post about this subject, I promise.  NIGHTMARE, you are taking an extreme example and comparing it to something that can happen due to non-extreme use of marijuana.  You are comparing repeatedly going 50+ hours sitting at a computer without sleep (it doesn't usually kill you if you do it once in a while, unless there is something else wrong with you) to the inevitable result of sustained regular use of marijuana.  The difference between my examples and yours is that if you smoke a joint 5 times a week you have the same risks as a one pack a day smoker.  A person using a computer with similar moderation might get tendonitis.  They just aren't comparable.  I think you already know this, so this is the last I will say on the subject.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 13, 2006, 03:16:36 PM
And for the record, neither Drew, nor Eral, nor I started this "argument". Nightmare did by trying to defend the absurd comparison of using drugs with reading, writing, and video games.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on January 13, 2006, 03:38:22 PM
I skipped most of the argument, but I think you can compare the hazards of marijuana with the hazards of computer game addiction.  It's just that most of the comparisons will have quite a huge spread.  Let's take a look at some made-up statistics, based on samplings from 1000 fake marijuana smokers, and 1000 fake video game players.

450 people couldn't quit smoking pot without a lot of help.
40 people couldn't quit video games.

972 smokers got lip cancer after 12 years, at three joints a day.
4 video game players for lip cancer. For some reason.
2 video game players got eyeball cancer.
1 video game player got asshole cancer, from sitting around so much.

So yeah, this seems to be conclusive fake proof that marijuana is more dangerous to your health than video games.  Is it silly to make such comparisons?  Sure it is.  Is it silly to argue about something so extremely ridiculous?  I'll have to check the statistics, but I think roughly 42% of forum goers are annoyed on tuesdays when it's sunny and people argue.  Compare that to only 13% of elephant keepers who're annoyed on tuesdays in the sun when people sit in companionable silence.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 05:18:55 PM
And for the record, neither Drew, nor Eral, nor I started this "argument". Nightmare did by trying to defend the absurd comparison of using drugs with reading, writing, and video games.

Funny you should say that comparing drugs with reading, writing and video games is absurd, since it was *you* who raised the issue, not me.  I'd say that a person who introduces a subject which he knows before hand is absurd, must be pretty absurd himself.  Especially as before this "debate" started, you seemed utterly oblivious to the fact that computers could have any harmful effects whatsoever.

EDIT: I also personally don't believe someone responsible for threads such as the recent "Homelessness", and of course the classic "Internet sexuality and 14 year-old girls", ought be taken too seriously when accusing other people of being absurd...

EDIT 2: BTW I would like to again point out that dying of cancer caused by smoking marijuana being worse than being blinded and/or crippled by computer usage is not an objective fact, it is a subjective opinion.  Many people would rather die than be disabled in such a way.  Since comparisons are supposed to involve facts, not opinions, I'm afraid that would make a comparison between the two perfectly valid.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 13, 2006, 05:33:16 PM
I started to reply to something rather nasty you said, NIGHTMARE, but I see you already edited your post. 
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 13, 2006, 05:55:13 PM
Ahhhh! Noooooo! Now it's gone to another page!!!

Barnacles!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: NiGHTMARE on January 13, 2006, 05:56:55 PM
Yes, because the history of underwear so much more important than health risks.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 13, 2006, 05:59:08 PM
The horror!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 13, 2006, 07:07:26 PM
I know one guy who smoked since he was 8 or something he had grey lungs when he was 30 and started to smoke weed
couple f years later around 45 his luns were tottaly clean of the ashes smoke leave that good isn't it?

:p
although his behaviour isn't the best one but what the hek no one is perfect until the final second of breath

and as for Ghrey
it's nice too compare weed addiction too
video games addiciton

but you  can't play videogames while u work or attend school
you can smoke weed however althogh it be a sneaky it will be done..
video games on the other hand won't
same goes for reading and such
real good comparision

I never heard a story of someone weeding himself too death
i do have heard a story of a gamer gaming himself too death..
and that has been more times in the news

and weed doesn't give you cancer, the smoke however does
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 13, 2006, 07:31:02 PM
Da Venoms last sentance is quite true. You can use marijuana brownies, tea, and some others.

I also agree with two things Blood Raven said. Guess which ones.


To stop smoking canabis really isn't that hard. In fact, it's really quite easy. It's just a matter of wether or not people want to; most don't, and those are the scenarios you hear about when people say "Once you start, it's near impossible to stop."

Oh, Blood, don't forget to answer Lu's question :)
Quote
You guys know how to ruin a perfectly good thread
  We can try to restore it, Blood Raven. For starters, can you tell me why Sister M, not the Horse?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 13, 2006, 07:46:21 PM
I had to look up horse, it's a new slang term that I hadn't heard of. Heroin. I like having fun, not being suicidal. That is a quick expensive fix with a high addiction rate. No thanks. I prefer the other that I take once in a while.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 13, 2006, 08:06:52 PM
*Scribbles in checkboard*

Good choice there, Blood. I think you're making excellent progress.
 :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on January 13, 2006, 09:12:51 PM
I had to look up horse, it's a new slang term that I hadn't heard of.

I think you haven't heard of it because it's actually old slang. Beat vintage, I believe.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on January 13, 2006, 09:18:10 PM
You know you are old when your slang becomes extinct.  :'(
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 13, 2006, 09:19:56 PM
You know you are old when your slang becomes extinct. :'(
Must be your generation.


I recall it as smack, though.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 13, 2006, 10:28:45 PM
Quote
I think you haven't heard of it because it's actually old slang. Beat vintage, I believe
   I am sure a read it in a book, can't remember which book it was though, but definitely smth pretty old. On The Road maybe? Hardly. Anyway, sounds cool, IMO
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Imrahil on January 13, 2006, 10:49:58 PM
video games on the other hand won't
same goes for reading and such
real good comparision

Anyone else think Da_venom is trying to write in haiku?

Real Good Comparison:
video games on
the other hand won't; same goes
for reading and such


- Imrahil
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Lu on January 13, 2006, 11:06:50 PM
Quote
I also agree with two things Blood Raven said. Guess which ones
     ? Say yes to drugs
     ? Hot passionate sex (as one of other ways of freeing your mind and body)
  Am I right, Jon? Though actually, I agree with more than two things Blood Raven said in this thread
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 14, 2006, 04:40:23 AM
Funny you should say that comparing drugs with reading, writing and video games is absurd, since it was *you* who raised the issue, not me.  I'd say that a person who introduces a subject which he knows before hand is absurd, must be pretty absurd himself.

Jon raised that issue in this post (http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,21255.msg278730.html#msg278730)

Quote
Especially as before this "debate" started, you seemed utterly oblivious to the fact that computers could have any harmful effects whatsoever.

I have not debated the harmful effects computers can have at all, so you have no reason to assume this.

Quote
EDIT 2: BTW I would like to again point out that dying of cancer caused by smoking marijuana being worse than being blinded and/or crippled by computer usage is not an objective fact, it is a subjective opinion.  Many people would rather die than be disabled in such a way.  Since comparisons are supposed to involve facts, not opinions, I'm afraid that would make a comparison between the two perfectly valid.

Let us say this, then: marijuana is deadlier.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 14, 2006, 05:38:32 AM
trust me weed is not deadly!
or give me a fact that it is plz
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 14, 2006, 06:19:08 AM
Try actually visiting one of the links I provided to the NIH, Da Venom.  The proof has already been provided.  You just appear not to have actually read it.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 14, 2006, 07:14:12 AM
Excerpted from The national institute of health (http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html):

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(9). Many of the extra sick days among the marijuana smokers in the study were for respiratory illnesses.

In fact, marijuana smoke contains 50 to 70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than does tobacco smoke(14). It also produces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their carcinogenic form—levels that may accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells(15). Marijuana users usually inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers do, which increases the lungs’ exposure to carcinogenic smoke. These facts suggest that, puff for puff, smoking marijuana may increase the risk of cancer more than smoking tobacco.


Excerpted from the DEA (http://www.dea.gov/ongoing/marijuana.html).

There are also many long-term health consequences of marijuana use. According to the National Institutes of Health, studies show that someone who smokes five joints per week may be taking in as many cancer-causing chemicals as someone who smokes a full pack of cigarettes every day.

I was, however, unable to find anything which corroborates or disagrees with this from the NIH.  The information I was able to gather from the NIH is certainly good enough, though.  The argument that marijuana is healthier than cigarettes appears to be out of step with current research.




so risk of more cancer means death?

Even the air you breath in is bad, most likely also an increase effect of cancer, almost everything u do is a higher risk of cancer
so weed really isn't the only thing around

also it had a higher risk, not Dying of too much smoking of weed...
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 14, 2006, 11:04:42 AM
almost everything u do is a higher risk of cancer
so weed really isn't the only thing around

Not playing with puppies.  Puppies do not cause cancer.  Puppies are more fun than weed.

Puppies also bring the attention of the opposite sex (or the same sex, if that's your thing) more than cannabis.

Puppies can mean more sex for you.

I suggest everyone buy a puppy. 
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 14, 2006, 11:29:46 AM
Puppies can mean more sex for you.

Well, if that's not sig material, I don't know what is.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: SimDing0™ on January 14, 2006, 11:50:34 AM
Is "puppy" some kind of euphemism?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 14, 2006, 11:58:38 AM
Is "puppy" some kind of euphemism?

Well, I think most of us remember:
Quote
~(She turns around and quickly flashes her breasts at you.) How about these puppies??~
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 14, 2006, 01:35:22 PM
a puppy can cause cancer, their vile farts will make your inside turn upside down :P
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on January 14, 2006, 02:47:49 PM
Well, I think most of us remember:
Quote
~(She turns around and quickly flashes her breasts at you.) How about these puppies??~

what the fuck

a puppy can cause cancer, their vile farts will make your inside turn upside down :P

That'll be quite enough.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on January 14, 2006, 04:01:39 PM
I suggest everyone buy a puppy.

I suggest that no one buy a puppy until they do their research and after a good long while of soul-searching decide whether or not they can handle the responsibility of caring for the life of another being.  Potheads and libertarians need not apply.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 14, 2006, 04:02:22 PM
Icelus, you forget the wonders of the combination of weed and puppies.
An old stoner pal* who used to smoke me up on occassion had a dog who loved weed. He would blow the smoke in his dogs face and get him high. It made for some interesting entertainment.
Though his old dog certainly isn't much of a puppy anymore.

Not that I'm supporting weed and puppies; just tossing the card out onto the table.
And really, you shouldn't try to get any animal high unless you know he wants to. His dog would get in my face whenever I tried to blow out smoke (I still didn't feel like I should get him high); so that's a good sign to know he really wants it.

Blood, I'm surprised you had to look up the Horse; even I could guess it! :)

Quote
I also agree with two things Blood Raven said. Guess which ones
     ? Say yes to drugs
     ? Hot passionate sex (as one of other ways of freeing your mind and body)
  Am I right, Jon? Though actually, I agree with more than two things Blood Raven said in this thread

We have a winner :D
Though those certainly aren't the only two.   There was some reason for saying "two"..  I'd have to read the rest of that post to remember what it was, though.    Just trust me. There is a reason behind everything.

Someone else posted!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on January 14, 2006, 04:44:05 PM
Looks like Ice has been smoking something that ins't tobbaco.


BTW Horse, from where I'm from is an anmimal found on the farm.
Title: Stoned beyond reason
Post by: Drew on January 15, 2006, 09:08:29 AM
50 bucks says this was Sim at 3am.  http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,21302.new/boardseen.html#new
Title: Re: Stoned beyond reason
Post by: Grim Squeaker on January 15, 2006, 09:15:01 AM
50 bucks says this was Sim at 3am.  http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,21302.new/boardseen.html#new

You do realise you flagged that as an e-mail link rather than as a url?  If you click it it'll open your e-mail client and compose a message to the e-mail address: http://forums.pocketplane.net/index.php/topic,21302.new/boardseen.html#new
Title: Re: Stoned beyond reason
Post by: Drew on January 15, 2006, 09:30:50 AM
Oops.  Fixed now.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Borsook on January 15, 2006, 11:45:07 AM
@Drew - it's not my business, but what's with all the avatar rotation? I'm silly, recognize people by avatars and erm, you get the idea.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on January 15, 2006, 11:48:31 AM
Don't worry, Borsook.  I'll get bored of it eventually.  (At which point it appears the world will end, unfortunately.)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Borsook on January 15, 2006, 11:51:46 AM
Don't worry, Borsook.  I'll get bored of it eventually.  (At which point it appears the world will end, unfortunately.)
I don't mind a nice effective end of the world once in a while, and it's been so long since the last one...
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 15, 2006, 04:18:16 PM
you know potheads need to apply
cause mostly they don't smoke outside
so they go outside and bring the dogg outside too and walk around with him :)

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 15, 2006, 07:13:53 PM
Dude... lay off the pot, k?  You've lost coherency.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on January 16, 2006, 01:49:32 AM
I think he was replying to my post, which was the very last one on page 8.  I've made that mistake before, so let's not blame the pot.  Although I tend to agree with your sentiment in general, of course.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on January 16, 2006, 12:02:54 PM
Dude... lay off the pot, k?  You've lost coherency.
dude I ain't on the pot
t.t i stopped you know?
I was just for testing purpose
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: icelus on January 16, 2006, 12:21:13 PM
dude I ain't on the pot

<Bons> Hee!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 16, 2006, 06:49:51 PM
Don't worry, Borsook. I'll get bored of it eventually. (At which point it appears the world will end, unfortunately.)

If you ever run out of ideas, I think it would be nice to see you in a tutu :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on January 16, 2006, 06:51:51 PM
http://www.jhfsc.org/photogallery/Costumes/Pink%20and%20Black%20Tutu.jpg

Totally you, Drew.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Nesquaam on February 05, 2006, 11:54:13 AM
Well have any of you complainers tried it yourself? before you even judge?
cause I used it and liked it. But there is no chance that i'm gonna be addicted too it. and some soft drugs are legal here(Holland)
Well, that's our (I'm Dutch too) famous 'gedoogbeleid'. Softdrugs are not allowed, but they are allowed at the same time.
So, it's not legal, but the government doesn't do anything to stop it.
Drugs can be legally sold in coffeeshops (we're they don't sell coffee), but they can't be legaly grown.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 05, 2006, 12:19:31 PM
Quote
Drugs can be legally sold in coffeeshops (we're they don't sell coffee), but they can't be legaly grown.

That seems stupid ::)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 05, 2006, 02:42:34 PM
You sell weed

but you can't grow it :P

nice rule eh?:D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 05, 2006, 10:46:48 PM
That's similar to a law I heard about somewhere that held that a prostitute would not be arrested for her crime but the client would. That could just have been bullshit; I don't remember the name of the country.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 06, 2006, 11:14:09 AM
well stupid laws are everywhere..no country has a perfect law system

so long the laws can make profit it would be done ^^

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 06, 2006, 05:16:54 PM
I want to grow some Poppies. They are such pretty useful plants.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 06, 2006, 06:00:29 PM
who doesn't :D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 06, 2006, 07:38:28 PM
That's similar to a law I heard about somewhere that held that a prostitute would not be arrested for her crime but the client would. That could just have been bullshit; I don't remember the name of the country.
It was Malaysia. Both of them were held - but the woman could pay a fine or whatever to get out, while the man had to be held until his wife or mother came and paid the fine. I thought it was a big improvement on 'arrest the woman but not the client.' And funnier. 

Back to topic -
You sell weed but you can't grow it :P nice rule eh?:D
I think the idea is to control the source of the drug, and cut down on trafficking. You allow people to access the drug without promoting widespread sale and drug cartel stuff. It also controls quality.

EDIT: typo
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on February 06, 2006, 08:34:05 PM
I want to grow some Poppies. They are such pretty useful plants.

I have them all over my yard. They grow like... well, weeds. The story is, an elderly neighbourhood man used to have them in his garden, "for medicine" he said. They're extremely hardy and self-sowing, so they've spread all over the place over the years. My grandma says the RCMP used to make people pull them up, but I guess it's not a priority anymore. Either nobody's bothered by them, or nobody knows what they are anymore.

Oh, and they do look nice enough while they're blooming, but the plants themselves are rather dull-looking, and downright ugly once they've gone to seed.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 06, 2006, 11:41:38 PM
That's similar to a law I heard about somewhere that held that a prostitute would not be arrested for her crime but the client would. That could just have been bullshit; I don't remember the name of the country.
It was Malaysia. Both of them were held - but the woman could pay a fine or whatever to get out, while the man had to be held until his wife or mother came and paid the fine. I thought it was a big improvement on 'arrest the woman but not the client.' And funnier. 
Quote

Actually, it was Sweden. And in Sweden selling sex is legal but buying it is not. Heh. Feminism in Sweden=female supremacy.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 07, 2006, 04:47:42 AM
Quote
Actually, it was Sweden. And in Sweden selling sex is legal but buying it is not. Heh. Feminism in Sweden=female supremacy.

Women pay for sex too, you know.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 07, 2006, 05:14:00 AM
Yes, they have to put up with men ALL DAY :P That's payment enough!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 07, 2006, 05:34:42 AM
Men who worship women would have no problem with women taking over, would they?

Female supremacy=a law giving women rights that have been ignored in the past=really ignorant and stupid men who worry about the size of their dicks, panicking that women might find out and laugh at them once they gain any sort of political or economic power, complaining about rare instances where women are recognised as equal in the law.

Malaysia had a law where the prostitutes were let off, but the men could only be released into the "custody" of their wives or mothers. Just one of those laws recognising that buying an illegal product should incur a penalty - and that if there was reduced demand for an illegal product, there be less of it on the streets.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 07, 2006, 12:28:01 PM
still debate over man and female?:)

still same thing too me a human

with bad habits, lust for gold, lust for money, lust for power, lust for freedom, lust for control, etc etc

what is the difference?
man uses raw power
while female uses looks/charms

but they stink in same way, man is made to destroy
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: notasophist on February 07, 2006, 04:38:12 PM
still debate over man and female?:)

still same thing too me a human

with bad habits, lust for gold, lust for money, lust for power, lust for freedom, lust for control, etc etc

what is the difference?
man uses raw power
while female uses looks/charms

but they stink in same way, man is made to destroy

How trite, name me one organism that exists without having to destroy something.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 07, 2006, 04:57:34 PM
well all organisme do except humans -.-

you take it too literally
animals don't build things so they can destroy it later, they eat yes but that is a must  have too survive they don't kill for fun like humans

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 07, 2006, 05:11:06 PM
well all organisme do except humans -.-

you take it too literally
animals don't build things so they can destroy it later, they eat yes but that is a must  have too survive they don't kill for fun like humans



Actually, it's a proven fact that dolphins have been known to kill for sport.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 07, 2006, 06:13:55 PM
Quote
Actually, it was Sweden. And in Sweden selling sex is legal but buying it is not. Heh. Feminism in Sweden=female supremacy.

Women pay for sex too, you know.

Yeah, but probably not nearly as much. And one-sided prostitution laws are not why Swedish feminists are female supremacists.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 07, 2006, 08:38:38 PM
Quote
Actually, it was Sweden. And in Sweden selling sex is legal but buying it is not. Heh. Feminism in Sweden=female supremacy.

Women pay for sex too, you know.
How scandalous! I would never!

But than again if I want it, I'll get it. :D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 07, 2006, 08:50:36 PM
Men who worship women would have no problem with women taking over, would they?

As long as everyone is treated equally, I don't see the problem with women "taking over".

Quote
Female supremacy=a law giving women rights that have been ignored in the past

No, female supremacy is when women demand that urinals be removed from public restrooms because they are just examples of men flaunting their manhood.

Malaysia had a law where the prostitutes were let off, but the men could only be released into the "custody" of their wives or mothers. Just one of those laws recognising that buying an illegal product should incur a penalty - and that if there was reduced demand for an illegal product, there be less of it on the streets.
Quote
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: notasophist on February 08, 2006, 12:01:48 AM
well all organisme do except humans -.-

you take it too literally
animals don't build things so they can destroy it later, they eat yes but that is a must  have too survive they don't kill for fun like humans



I don't mind being misanthropic, but it should be done with clarity.

Mankind is an asshole for killing things for fun, not because it destroys stuff.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 08, 2006, 12:14:39 AM
You know, removing urinals from restrooms is an excellent idea. Probably we wouldn't need seperate toilets any more, and that long line outside the women's loos at clubs would be a distant memory. Total cubicle zones - let's start agitating now. 

IS THAT BETTER ICE??
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 08, 2006, 12:18:24 AM
You know, removing urinals from restrooms is an excellent idea.'

I don't see why, certainly not when trying to say their existence is sexist.

Quote
Probably we wouldn't need seperate toilets any more, and that long line outside the women's loos at clubs would be a distant memory. Total cubicle zones - let's start agitating now.

That will never happen because guys will always be trying to look at some sliced roast beef.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 08, 2006, 08:24:11 AM
Quote
Probably we wouldn't need seperate toilets any more, and that long line outside the women's loos at clubs would be a distant memory. Total cubicle zones - let's start agitating now.

That will never happen because guys will always be trying to look at some sliced roast beef.
No wonder I hate men. All they have on their mind is the next score.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: guildmasterron on February 08, 2006, 10:56:55 AM
Quote
Probably we wouldn't need seperate toilets any more, and that long line outside the women's loos at clubs would be a distant memory. Total cubicle zones - let's start agitating now.

That will never happen because guys will always be trying to look at some sliced roast beef.
No wonder I hate men. All they have on their mind is the next score.

As is so often the case, this general statement is simply not true. Not ALL men are thinking about that next score.  And, certainly, one cannot truly suggest that there are not some women out there that simply are thinking about making their next score...
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 08, 2006, 10:59:36 AM
well all organisme do except humans -.-

you take it too literally
animals don't build things so they can destroy it later, they eat yes but that is a must  have too survive they don't kill for fun like humans



Actually, it's a proven fact that dolphins have been known to kill for sport.

got a link for that one?;)


well all organisme do except humans -.-

you take it too literally
animals don't build things so they can destroy it later, they eat yes but that is a must have too survive they don't kill for fun like humans



I don't mind being misanthropic, but it should be done with clarity.

Mankind is an asshole for killing things for fun, not because it destroys stuff.

so humans don't destroy building, woods, animal lives, the earth?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 08, 2006, 11:11:20 AM
well all organisme do except humans -.-

you take it too literally
animals don't build things so they can destroy it later, they eat yes but that is a must  have too survive they don't kill for fun like humans



Actually, it's a proven fact that dolphins have been known to kill for sport.

got a link for that one?;)

Google it :)


Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 08, 2006, 12:22:13 PM
As is so often the case, this general statement is simply not true. Not ALL men are thinking about that next score.  And, certainly, one cannot truly suggest that there are not some women out there that simply are thinking about making their next score...

Not all men, no. But there are enough to not have men and women sharing public toilets.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: guildmasterron on February 08, 2006, 01:28:49 PM
As is so often the case, this general statement is simply not true. Not ALL men are thinking about that next score.  And, certainly, one cannot truly suggest that there are not some women out there that simply are thinking about making their next score...

Not all men, no. But there are enough to not have men and women sharing public toilets.

Well, that, to me, is not the best reason to say why unisex restrooms are a bad idea. And it does not address the fact that there are, indeed, sexually predatory women out there as well. It is not really fair to claim that the men would cause all the problems with such an arrangement.

As for public restrooms, if I were to design a building, I would put twice as many stalls in the women's restrooms as opposed to the number of urinals and stalls in the men's room. That would eliminate the long lines in most cases. Women, oftentimes, wear more complicated outfits than men do, as such take more time using said facilities even when the line is not a factor.

I do, however, agree that unisex restrooms/washrooms are generally not a good idea.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 08, 2006, 01:32:33 PM
Well, that, to me, is not the best reason to say why unisex restrooms are a bad idea. And it does not address the fact that there are, indeed, sexually predatory women out there as well. It is not really fair to claim that the men would cause all the problems with such an arrangement.

I understand that, but men are still more likely to turn to bastardry. You don't even have to be a sexual predator to get some stupid idea in your head to go and take a peak under a stall door.

Quote
As for public restrooms, if I were to design a building, I would put twice as many stalls in the women's restrooms as opposed to the number of urinals and stalls in the men's room. That would eliminate the long lines in most cases. Women, oftentimes, wear more complicated outfits than men do, as such take more time using said facilities even when the line is not a factor.

Ladies probably take longer to pee as well. I don't disagree that bathrooms for ladies should be more accomodating, but it is a little easier to fit urinals into men's rooms.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 08, 2006, 02:38:03 PM
I don't disagree that bathrooms for ladies should be more accomodating, but it is a little easier to fit urinals into men's rooms.
Which is why the ladies room should be bigger than the mens room.  I'm so happy this thread stopped being about weed......
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 08, 2006, 02:53:15 PM
Agree on both counts.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 08, 2006, 05:08:49 PM
It should be about opium!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 08, 2006, 05:56:43 PM
or whatever expands your mind :P
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: SimDing0™ on February 08, 2006, 05:57:43 PM
Well, that, to me, is not the best reason to say why unisex restrooms are a bad idea.
I agree. We have unisex toilets at one of the campus bars here, and I can only feel sorry for the girls who emerge from the cubicles to find the football team experimenting with how many of them can squeeze into a line along the urinal.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: notasophist on February 08, 2006, 11:01:00 PM

so humans don't destroy building, woods, animal lives, the earth?

Yes, but all oragnisms end up directly or indirectly destroying buildings, woods, animal lives and the earth. It's called evolution. The main difference between mankind and other organisms, of course, is motivation.   

I don't mind continuing this discussion but I prefer it at a different thread (it's getting a bit ot).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 09, 2006, 02:06:37 AM
We have unisex toilets at one of the campus bars here, and I can only feel sorry for the girls who emerge from the cubicles to find the football team experimenting with how many of them can squeeze into a line along the urinal.
The problem there is caused by urinals. Cubicles. Private. Much better.
I speak from the perspective of one who works with hardly any men, and lots of women. As the bell is about to go, and four of us are still waiting to get to the loo, while down the hall the men's toilets are vacant, those little signs on the door mean 'Unisex'. You just have to tell the bloke ogf the democratic decision reached.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 09, 2006, 06:07:41 AM

so humans don't destroy building, woods, animal lives, the earth?

Yes, but all oragnisms end up directly or indirectly destroying buildings, woods, animal lives and the earth. It's called evolution. The main difference between mankind and other organisms, of course, is motivation.   

I don't mind continuing this discussion but I prefer it at a different thread (it's getting a bit ot).


well we're indeed going Off topic but it's an interested discussion :)

A squirrel doesn't make a home in a tree just too destroy it later
also they eat woods or fruitsand vegetables for food too survive
humans destroy wood foor buildings and destroy them later when they get old or something
also they care for more and more
a human's motivation is money every soul can be bought
and animal won't he just makes sures he survives
and motivation people lack, since everything goes automatic I really would wonder what would happend if all elektrcitiy would fall out..
total chaos and eradication of the world
since people will mass gather for wood/food but I gues people can't look further than that and just rely on *mechanics*




and what is so wrong with unisex toilet? Females want to integrate with society so much they want to be seen as man. So why complain when man will allow them?
Also a thing bugging me.. i can understand women want the same paycheck and such and same respect
but sometimes that's just not possible
or too fully integrate in the male society, neither can a male fully integrate in a female society

people really should care more for eachother than for money -.-

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 09, 2006, 02:03:19 PM
and what is so wrong with unisex toilet? Females want to integrate with society so much they want to be seen as man. So why complain when man will allow them?

The problem is that some people are perverts.


Quote
Also a thing bugging me.. i can understand women want the same paycheck and such and same respect
but sometimes that's just not possible
or too fully integrate in the male society, neither can a male fully integrate in a female society

people really should care more for eachother than for money -.-

There's no logical reason a man and woman should not be paid exactly the same for the same job.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 09, 2006, 03:52:36 PM
the only logical thing is they make difference out of something they shouldn't ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 09, 2006, 04:11:25 PM
the only logical thing is they make difference out of something they shouldn't ;)


What are you talking about?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 09, 2006, 04:12:28 PM
We have unisex toilets at one of the campus bars here, and I can only feel sorry for the girls who emerge from the cubicles to find the football team experimenting with how many of them can squeeze into a line along the urinal.
The problem there is caused by urinals. Cubicles. Private. Much better.
I speak from the perspective of one who works with hardly any men, and lots of women. As the bell is about to go, and four of us are still waiting to get to the loo, while down the hall the men's toilets are vacant, those little signs on the door mean 'Unisex'. You just have to tell the bloke ogf the democratic decision reached.

You know, you really don't need unisex restrooms for this kind of thing. If the guys' spot is totally empty, why not just ignore the sign and go for it? :)

Anyway, I would love the idea of unisex restrooms because it would be more convinient, but like Joe says, some most people are perverts. I shudder to think at what most guys would do when other people aren't looking in unisex restrooms. It's already bad enough when they're segregated.

Though that's not to say that only guys would do it, I guess. But honestly, just walk down to a couple stores near you and compare the guys' room to the girls room.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 09, 2006, 04:13:20 PM
the only logical thing is they make difference out of something they shouldn't ;)


What are you talking about?

I think you would have done bette not to ask.

Curiosity killed the cat, you know.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 09, 2006, 04:38:39 PM
the only logical thing is they make difference out of something they shouldn't ;)


What are you talking about?

I think you would have done bette not to ask.

Curiosity killed the cat, you know.

Miaow.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 09, 2006, 05:57:18 PM
Since men's rooms are generally the same size as ladies rooms, I would contend that the problem is actually due to the fact that men's rooms have more toilets/urinals.  The solution is simple, in my opinion.  Make ladies rooms bigger in order to fit more commodes, and make the men's rooms smaller.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 09, 2006, 09:18:50 PM
No, they want equality! Let them have it! URINALS FOR THE LADIES!
I have heard tales from various places about women being able to use urinals with training too, so it's not completely crazy talk!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 09, 2006, 09:54:39 PM
Cats can use toilets with the proper training, so I guess the same could work with women and urinals; Though I think most women would have some kind of objection to this.

More private stalls would do just fine.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 09, 2006, 10:07:38 PM
Reise, reise
Seemann Reise!
Jeder tut's auf seine Weise
Der eine stößt den Speer zum Mann
Der andere zum Fische dann

Ah, hsss hsss, ahoooooii

Reise, reise
Seemann Reise!
Und die Wellen weinen leise
In ihrem Blute steckt ein Speer
Bluten leise in das Meer
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 09, 2006, 10:23:06 PM
Indeed :D
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on February 10, 2006, 12:06:08 AM
No, they want equality! Let them have it! URINALS FOR THE LADIES!
I have heard tales from various places about women being able to use urinals with training too, so it's not completely crazy talk!

One of my friends says she can do this, since she goes camping (backpacking, not sissy RVing or anything), and needed to figure out how to do it without taking off her pack.  True equality will only be achieved when women have to stand up to pee, but not into a urinal. Oh no. Into a trough. If I have to suffer the indignity, then so do they.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on February 10, 2006, 12:28:46 AM
Peeing standing up isn't too difficult to get the hang of, but women would still need to get a lot more undressed than men to do so, since they don't have any bits they can just slip out through their fly. It would actually be easier with a skirt than with pants, unless hosiery are involved. Hosiery ups the difficulty factor of getting undressed by about 5, I'd say.

This implies that true equality would somehow have to involve pantyhose for men.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 10, 2006, 01:10:53 AM
Or women could stop being such material sissies and stick with underwear and pants. Or they could cut a hole where need be for quick-and-easy pee. If women are so concerned about it, let them figure it out ::)

In the end, I still say that we really shouldn't have nudity laws, and people should just use logical sense. Why wear clothes when it's one hundred degrees outside?

But then again, thousands of people feed their familes by making, selling, and advertising clothing, so I guess there would be some negative effects of an all-out nude society.
But you know, most American families give one person enough food that could feed four people, so...

It just goes on and on.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 10, 2006, 03:44:10 AM
Quote
If women are so concerned about it

Am I the only person who notices that it tends to be the men who bring up this crap and try to make issues out of natural differences?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 10, 2006, 08:06:20 AM
Reise, reise
Seemann Reise!
Jeder tut's auf seine Weise
Der eine stößt den Speer zum Mann
Der andere zum Fische dann

Ah, hsss hsss, ahoooooii

Reise, reise
Seemann Reise!
Und die Wellen weinen leise
In ihrem Blute steckt ein Speer
Bluten leise in das Meer

Why of course. Danke
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 10, 2006, 11:54:39 AM


In the end, I still say that we really shouldn't have nudity laws, and people should just use logical sense. Why wear clothes when it's one hundred degrees outside?


Look, mang, I don't want my dick to be sunburned.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 10, 2006, 04:21:08 PM
Quote
If women are so concerned about it

Am I the only person who notices that it tends to be the men who bring up this crap and try to make issues out of natural differences?

Most of that post was sarcasm, including that little bit. Relax!



In the end, I still say that we really shouldn't have nudity laws, and people should just use logical sense. Why wear clothes when it's one hundred degrees outside?


Look, mang, I don't want my dick to be sunburned.

Sunblock ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 10, 2006, 04:28:36 PM

Sunblock ;)

Yes, but some people would just generally do better not to leave the house without clothing.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 10, 2006, 06:23:46 PM

Sunblock ;)

Yes, but some people would just generally do better not to leave the house without clothing.

why use sonblock if you can just put it in somewhere  ::)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 10, 2006, 06:28:59 PM
what
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Imrahil on February 10, 2006, 11:48:46 PM
Am I the only person who notices that it tends to be the men who bring up this crap and try to make issues out of natural differences?
Bex, the one who brought "this" up, is a man?  I always assumed otherwise.  Sorry, Bex.

- Imrahil
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on February 11, 2006, 12:56:00 AM
Don't be sorry. I'm about as manly as Eral. (What did I bring up again?)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 12, 2006, 07:52:33 AM
I was actually referring to Jon etc being pissy :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 12, 2006, 03:36:28 PM
I was actually referring to Jon etc being pissy :)

Hey, I wasn't being pissy. In fact, I think I was being very, very happy.
 :D
See?

Put a smile on.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 13, 2006, 01:20:05 AM
Well he can be pissy easy, all he has to do is unzip his fly and whip it out.

Oh wait, you said BE pissy, not go pissy.

(and yes, women have more clothes to organise around. Find a dress that looks good on you guys, wear pants underneath it, then tell me it's just as eezy for women to take a piss in a urinal)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 13, 2006, 10:28:52 PM
True equality will only be achieved when women have to stand up to pee, but not into a urinal. Oh no. Into a trough. If I have to suffer the indignity, then so do they.
I have to say I didn't expect this sort of bitterness from a Canadian. I believe true equality could be achieved by men sitting down to pee, as well. And the floor would stay cleaner.

(and yes, women have more clothes to organise around. Find a dress that looks good on you guys, wear pants underneath it, then tell me it's just as eezy for women to take a piss in a urinal)
Without getting your shoes wet. If wearing sturdy boots or runners, not SO much of a problem. MAJOR problem when wearing strappy sandals.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 13, 2006, 10:53:57 PM

I have to say I didn't expect this sort of bitterness from a Canadian. I believe true equality could be achieved by men sitting down to pee, as well. And the floor would stay cleaner.

Surely you're joking...?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 13, 2006, 11:19:34 PM
(and yes, women have more clothes to organise around. Find a dress that looks good on you guys, wear pants underneath it, then tell me it's just as eezy for women to take a piss in a urinal)
Without getting your shoes wet. If wearing sturdy boots or runners, not SO much of a problem. MAJOR problem when wearing strappy sandals.
I assumed the range problem would be something you'd learn through while training yourself to do it in the first place.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on February 13, 2006, 11:23:40 PM
I assumed the range problem would be something you'd learn through while training yourself to do it in the first place.

Not so much a problem with range as anatomy. We'd have to aim with our entire body.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 13, 2006, 11:44:41 PM
Surely you're joking...?
I firmly believe that floors would stay cleaner longer if men sat down to pee. Inaccurate aim is a big problem for so many. If you cleaned the toilet floor you would know this.
I would like to explain my views on why I don't expect bitterness from Canadians, but it would involve making comparative statements between Canadians and Americans, and in doing so, I may offend individuals for whom I have nothing but admiration.
Also, the Dwarven Moderator might lock the thread if it becomes too controversial.

re. range vs anatomy: there's only so far you can lean, and so far apart you can spread your feet while squatting, before you fall down. Splashback is also a problem (see ref. to strappy sandals.)




Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 14, 2006, 01:11:55 AM
Ahh, I see. I rather dodge the general logistics of even male standy peeing by sitting all the time anyhow. Saves so much time and effort.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 14, 2006, 02:06:00 AM
You may use any of the bathrooms in my house, at any time.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 14, 2006, 04:17:47 PM
Guys have trouble aiming?  It's not that challenging.
I hope.

In school, most of the guys (the homophobes and insecure kids) absolutly refuse to pee in a urnial next to another guy. There's six urinals lined up along the wall and one stall. This isn't terribly relevant to the conversation, but I just find this pathetic. Yes, I'm fully aware that people could very well have unpleasureable marks, but not that many people.
If there's a pot to pee in, just pee in it.

Quote
I firmly believe that floors would stay cleaner longer if men sat down to pee. Inaccurate aim is a big problem for so many. If you cleaned the toilet floor you would know this.

You can't really think that men miss (on accident, I mean) that often! If you were a guy, you would know this ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 14, 2006, 04:32:41 PM
Surely you're joking...?
I firmly believe that floors would stay cleaner longer if men sat down to pee. Inaccurate aim is a big problem for so many. If you cleaned the toilet floor you would know this.

I was referring to the "equality" bit.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: chipsex on February 14, 2006, 06:15:04 PM
Hi! Newguy here.  :P I had been sorta kinda lurking on and off for a couple of weeks now wondering just what in the stinken frell you guys are talking about. But now EPIPHANY! A topic I know something about. Pissing. And I have the shoes to prove it! Oh, right....and the floor.
There have been some circumstances in my life in which I, a male, was required to sit no matter what the expulsion was to be. Look up; "Military Service", "Boot Camp", "USMC" and stuff like that. Hey! The military prizes clean, dry floors & highly polished boots/shoes.
Then there was this scene from a movie starring Jack Nicholson about a guy who just retired when his wife dies. Anybody see that one? Excellent water extraction scene! OK, so it wasn't an extraction. Unless you take into consideration his new found freedom.
Now I'm not sure what I'm talking about.  ???
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: fcm on February 14, 2006, 06:26:00 PM
I assumed the range problem would be something you'd learn through while training yourself to do it in the first place.

Not so much a problem with range as anatomy. We'd have to aim with our entire body.

I'm a girl. I know how to pee standing up, and I can aim . . . But I'd surely miss a toilet. It's only useful becuase I used to do a lot of camping back before I moved. WOO CAMPING!

I prefer to sit, by the way.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on February 14, 2006, 06:56:57 PM
I can pee standing up too, if I have to (again, all hail the great outdoors). Sitting is preferable.

Jon: It is my experience that many men dribble a little. Some even have a split stream thing going on, which is difficult for them to control. I think these issues are less evident when using urinals though.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 14, 2006, 07:51:52 PM
This thread has become a bad trip.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 15, 2006, 12:21:41 AM
Jon, I clean the bathrooms in my house. The wee on the side of the toilet and splashed on the back is not placed there by someone sitting on the bowl. No, it was from someone proudly asserting their masculinity by standing up to wee. The fact that masculinity needs to be asserted at all by standing up to wee is a cause of concern in itself.

Joe, I thought you would be better at recognising irony/sarcasm/satire/facetiousness by now.

How on earth do you keep your jeans dry weeing standing up? I take off my hat to you. Freud thought women who wanted to pee standing up had serious problems with their gender identity. It didn't occur to him they just hated petticoats.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 15, 2006, 07:44:20 AM
Yrros ma I, ssal ym.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 15, 2006, 08:30:27 AM
Ich verstehe nicht
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Marauder on February 15, 2006, 02:08:40 PM
Jo jo, det giver da en masse mening.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 15, 2006, 04:50:17 PM
Quote
Jon: It is my experience that many men dribble a little. Some even have a split stream thing going on, which is difficult for them to control. I think these issues are less evident when using urinals though.

I always thought the split stream only occured during specific moments, and not a very wide, uh, span. But if it becomes a problem I guess you'd be right abouting either sitting down or going in a urinal.

Quote
The fact that masculinity needs to be asserted at all by standing up to wee is a cause of concern in itself.

It's not that we feel the need to flaunt our masculinity, it just saves us a good thirty seconds of sit-down time :)


And when you have a penis, you automatically gain a couple inches distance away from your pants and toward your target, making for a long, clean shot.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Ghreyfain on February 15, 2006, 07:51:23 PM
And when you have a penis, you automatically gain a couple inches distance away from your pants and toward your target, making for a long, clean shot.

Here's someone's cue to say "only a couple inches? I'd say I'm safe by at least a distance of X!"

So let's spare ourselves the agony and have a good manly chortle right now. Good one, whoever was going to make that joke!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 15, 2006, 08:17:23 PM
Eh?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 15, 2006, 10:05:50 PM
A couple of inches?!!!  A couple of inches!!!?  If only I were so lucky. :'(
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 15, 2006, 11:26:01 PM
Yeah, poor Drew has to pick his shit up off the floor any time he unzips. very unweildy.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 15, 2006, 11:35:31 PM
Nothing of the sort.  I'm hung like a fruit fly. ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 16, 2006, 12:34:28 AM
Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 16, 2006, 08:01:27 AM
Quote
Jon: It is my experience that many men dribble a little. Some even have a split stream thing going on, which is difficult for them to control. I think these issues are less evident when using urinals though.

I always thought the split stream only occured during specific moments, and not a very wide, uh, span. But if it becomes a problem I guess you'd be right abouting either sitting down or going in a urinal.

Quote
The fact that masculinity needs to be asserted at all by standing up to wee is a cause of concern in itself.

It's not that we feel the need to flaunt our masculinity, it just saves us a good thirty seconds of sit-down time :)


And when you have a penis, you automatically gain a couple inches distance away from your pants and toward your target, making for a long, clean shot.

30 seconds? The hell? Do you wear a dress or something? It takes me a whole 10 seconds more to sit down,20 if you count walking to a crapper in a public loo as well.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: clock sendak on February 16, 2006, 09:53:17 AM
so it started out with drugs and now we're at peeing (which has to be the most unmanly way to refer to it, and should only be used by men involved in serious committed relationships).  You guys are crazy (that sentence should be pronounced like the taco bell chihuahua. actually it's kind of nice when everything...)

anyway, i pee standing up, sometimes there's a little splash, but you're gonna clean the floor once a week anyway so why not enjoy this more or less harmless masculine moment.  I find the biggest problem is afterwards

"no matter how much you jiggle and dance, the last few drops go down your pants"

(sorry, don't mean to bring up personal social stigma, haha)

but really, if you're given a choice, go slash outside, even if you're not camping.  It's a great way to take a moment, inhale the air around you, contemplate your role in the cosmos...

whatever, I'm gonna go get stoned
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 16, 2006, 01:29:19 PM
that's the way lad :D

anyway you never use toilet paper to get rid of the last few drops?

so your telling us that your pants always has yellow stains in it? :-X
yagh
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Cybersquirt on February 16, 2006, 02:39:16 PM
me thinks toilet paper would ruin the "masculine moment", no?  :P
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 16, 2006, 05:10:10 PM
Ugh. I agree.
Toilet paper.. Honestly ::)

Sendak- Very nice thoughts :) I agree, though if you rapidly hop up once or twice, it should get the job done.
Though that may not be very acceptable in a public bathroom. Where there's a hope, there's a way.

Edit to take out something silly (I mean, more silly than would be tolerated on this forum).
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 16, 2006, 06:39:53 PM
Nothing of the sort. I'm hung like a fruit fly. ;)
Ladies man, no?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Da_venom on February 17, 2006, 01:52:46 PM
haha blood raven :P

he just talk's about his friend(the penis) it's not his gender...
but his friend :P
he talks to him so it wil pep up a bit :P
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 17, 2006, 02:51:53 PM
I don't know what all this talk of dribbling is about. I only ever do that once in a while and only during a certain uncomfortable circumstance which i will not specifically identify at the risk of giving too much information. And even then I whipe the floor.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 17, 2006, 05:17:06 PM
I don't know what all this talk of dribbling is about. I only ever do that once in a while and only during a certain uncomfortable circumstance which i will not specifically identify at the risk of giving too much information. And even then I whipe the floor.

That's a right good deed, there. But you know what's really a pain? Wiping that little spot behind the seat. It's hard to describe so you women may not know what I mean, but the guys probably do.

Please note that it's not as if I ever need to wipe that spot because of my own little slips. But we were all little kids once who wanted to see how far we could go and all that...
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: clock sendak on February 18, 2006, 01:46:10 PM
so your telling us that your pants always has yellow stains in it?


nah, i tape one of those ultraslim maxi pads between my underwear and my pants - the urine soak doesn't get past my undies and the maxi pad give a nice ripple to my package.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 18, 2006, 02:46:30 PM
Haha! Now there's an idea 8)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 18, 2006, 02:54:39 PM
Do any of you guys know what uncomfortable circumstance I am talking about?
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 18, 2006, 03:39:15 PM
Either when you are unconcious or jerking off, I imagine.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 18, 2006, 03:43:14 PM
Drunk. Happens to my dad all the time.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 18, 2006, 04:05:31 PM
No it's not any of those.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 18, 2006, 06:16:40 PM
Flying high
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 18, 2006, 07:13:17 PM
I was referring to trying to piss with an erection. This usually happens in the morning. I have to bend my whole body forward.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 18, 2006, 07:19:56 PM
Some things are best left unsaid.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 18, 2006, 07:23:03 PM
You speak truly. But I was hoping my fellow males would be able to sympathize. Apparently they cannot. :(
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 18, 2006, 07:29:01 PM
They're speechless.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: fcm on February 18, 2006, 07:31:09 PM
That was totally in the 40 Year Old Virgin. I had some serious questions to ask my boyfriend about that, because up until I saw that, I thought it was physically impossible to piss with an erection.

I think our entire conversation consideted of "No fucking way!" "YES!" "Nuh-uh!" "YES!" "Shutup!" "You can!" "NO!" etc etc. I was deeply disturbed by my ignorance on this mater.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 18, 2006, 07:51:00 PM
Heh, my 7th grade science teacher said that it was impossible to pee with an erection. I was very much confused by that foolish assertion.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: clock sendak on February 18, 2006, 10:43:06 PM
fyi: it doesn't only happen in the morning.  sometimes you get that still kinda-hard hard after afternoon sex and you gotta go piss at an angle best left to people with muscular deformities.  heh.

Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: fcm on February 18, 2006, 11:19:28 PM
Heh, my 7th grade science teacher said that it was impossible to pee with an erection.

That's what my sex-ed teacher told us, too. But he was an idiot and I hated him. Anyway, that's what he told us.

Hahaha to him. He didn't even really know where a hymen was or what it looked like. He'd always diagram it down way to far. I mean way to far.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 18, 2006, 11:34:15 PM
Hahahahaha.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Bex on February 19, 2006, 03:31:04 PM
Heh, my 7th grade science teacher said that it was impossible to pee with an erection.

That's what my sex-ed teacher told us, too. But he was an idiot and I hated him. Anyway, that's what he told us.

Yeah, I picked that up from somewhere as well, and was later corrected.

I think it's a mis-translation of the reassurance that no, the man does not pee inside the woman because it's impossible to urinate while ejaculating.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 19, 2006, 05:06:40 PM
You know, I'm now really grateful for the innocence/ignorance of my childhood and adolescence (and if I'm being honest) my early adulthood. Because it never once occured to me that this might be an issue. Imagine, this was such a common fear that it was included in sex ed. Perhaps they were trying to make sex sound as if it was really no fun at all.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 19, 2006, 05:18:44 PM
My friends, it's not completely false that it's impossible to pee with an erection. You see, when the penis becomes engored with blood, a little 'valve' closes over [something*], preventing urine from passing into the urethra so it doesn't interfere with the flowing of semen. This is why when you have a light erection it's very, very difficult to pee, but not quite impossible. The harder you are, the harder it is.

Hah! Learned that in health class last semester.

*I don't know exactly what gets closed off. I don't think it's the bladder. Maybe something connecting the bladder to the urethra? Oh well. The point is that you need to be before you get aroused.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 19, 2006, 05:29:07 PM
I'll add that it's actually quite painfull to pee when you are really, really aroused.  Some wussy men might just assume that it's impossible because of the pain and think about their mothers for a minute or two (the fastest way in the world to kill an erection, unless you are Oedipus) before attempting the feat, but it can be done.  It just really, really hurts. :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Jon on February 19, 2006, 05:46:53 PM
Quote
think about their mothers for a minute or two (the fastest way in the world to kill an erection
Haha! It's true! :D

Sort of like the best way to 'sober up' is to think of police officers knocking on your bedroom door.

Of course I'm aware that it won't actually sober you up, which is why I stuck some quotes around it. But it clears your head completely, and, basically, makes you become 'sober' enough to talk/walk your way out of a perilous situation. Lord knows it saved my booty back in the day.

Memories :)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Veloxyll on February 19, 2006, 10:57:50 PM
That's not always true, sometimes your body will happily let it go when you're hard enough to shatter diamonds. The curious thing I've found is it usually kills an erection regaurdless of how hard you were when you started peeing
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 20, 2006, 02:00:40 AM
I am ALWAYS hard enough to shatter diamonds in those sitations.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Alarielle on February 20, 2006, 02:57:12 AM
 :'(
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Eral on February 20, 2006, 04:04:24 AM
Just talk about tea vs hot chocolate, Alarielle. It will greatly ease your pain.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 20, 2006, 07:15:25 AM
When a man brags about his erection it's usually a phsycological defense mechanism due to his being, uh, poorly endowed.  This is just a cry for help.  Joe needs the ladies to reassure him that it isn't the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean that counts.  Yes, yes, we all know it isn't true, but this poor man's mental stability is at stake, here.  Take pity on him and lie, ladies.  Please.  There's no telling what Joe might do if his call for help goes unanswered.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Dark Raven on February 20, 2006, 07:42:25 AM
 :-X
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 20, 2006, 11:55:16 AM
When a man brags about his erection it's usually a phsycological defense mechanism due to his being, uh, poorly endowed.  This is just a cry for help.  Joe needs the ladies to reassure him that it isn't the size of the boat, but the motion of the ocean that counts.  Yes, yes, we all know it isn't true, but this poor man's mental stability is at stake, here.  Take pity on him and lie, ladies.  Please.  There's no telling what Joe might do if his call for help goes unanswered.

Even though you are joking, I want to make it clear that I have not claimed to have a large penis. As a male you know that hardness does does not equal length.

I just wanted to get it across that I don't have to be semi-hard in order to piss with an erection. Most of the time I am harder than George Bush's head and still able to piss.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: fcm on February 20, 2006, 02:01:52 PM
For shame!
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Drew on February 20, 2006, 03:23:55 PM
I don't know......I'd say telling everyone you have a diamond cutting hammer in your pants may well qualify as a form of bragging about the endowment.  You're right, though.......you didn't say you were long,and therefore my use of a size metaphor was inappropriate.  I should have used an insult along the lines of "stiff as a 3 week ripe bananna" or "hard as an ex-presidential candidate that likes pepsi" or something.  My bad. ;)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Joe on February 20, 2006, 03:36:15 PM
 8)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Klazmar on February 27, 2006, 12:04:47 AM
Well, seeing what a fasinating conversation we're all having here, I thought I'd put in my $.02.
Porn is like candy. It's fun easy to use. It draws you in against your will when put in commercials (just like sweet foods are hard to resist). It may be nice as an appetizer, or between meals, but overuse can cause permanent damage, especially when not brushed over (expunged from History). Overuse in and of itself is bad too, degrading standards of what satisfies one's needs.

No wait... porn is healthy and natural. It's like Newsweek. If you want the real stuff, it may take some effort to find the ultimate truth, and for those not mature enough to handle it, that may not be possible. In an average day, Newsweek is acceptable.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Rika on September 23, 2008, 12:18:01 PM
I feel quite small..

(bump)
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Marauder on September 24, 2008, 01:01:38 PM
I feel quite large.


Ba-dum-tish.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Rika on September 25, 2008, 10:13:54 AM
So that's why those large, shiny bullets are there.
Title: Re: Stoned
Post by: Marauder on September 25, 2008, 01:58:53 PM
That's just me compensating - the above was a joke.


The above was a joke.