Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I believe schools should have them, but they most definitely should not be mandatory unless if there is a way to prevent it from hurting GPA just because you aren't good. At my school, only the top musicians can earn the honors credit while any idiot with a calculator can get the honors credit in Math.

Rather than making a playing class mandatory, schools should make a theory class mandatory. That way, somebody with motor issues could learn music. I think the benefical part to music is the theory rather than the playing. While playing may be fun, it limits you to a small area of the music world. Theory, on the other hand, can be applied to multiple instruments. On top of that, theory can be studied anywhere while playing requires an instrument and an environment to play in. A theory class could be taught on a budget much smaller than any other class at a school, so any program could adopt the class.

On the topic of high school, I think it should be manditory for freshmen and maybe even sophomores to do it not matter what their capacity is. It gets kids out of the classroom for awhile and it encourages students to "mingle" with each other. On the athletic side, it gives underclassmen who may not know how or when to train independently a chance to develop their training skills. PE was so helpful for me when I was training for distance running. I haven't been able to beat my mile time since I've stopped taking P.E.

At 6/10/07 04:03 PM, Cole wrote:

\

Wrong. There ARE no AI's in Counter-Strike. It's full online, with a squad of terrorists squaring off against a squad of Counter-Terrorists, usually in either mission-based or deathmatch format.

Yeah, there are. The host can set how many bots there are in one game. Many hosts choose not to have bots.

Anyway, the point is the killing itself being the influence and while it may help one shoot, it does not make one decide to shoot people. That is a personal decision.

Increasing the minimum driver's license age will not affect the fatality rate directly, and I believe that most people would disagree with this statement. The problem is not necessarily (most likely misspelled) maturity, but rather experience. The earlier one learns how to drive, the better driver they will become. Thanks to my karting past (SKUSA, IKF, WKA, and RMAX), I have 5.5 years of experience under my belt as a 17-year-old driver. Given this does not help me park, it has gotten me through some tough situations.

I am a rare case since most people won't shell up the cash to do auto-racing. That is why we need to find a way to educate young drivers early and inexpensively. I have seen simulator technology and that may be our answer. The cost of maintaining a simulator is much cheaper than maintaining a car as well as being much safer. If we could put the simulators in high schools and maybe even some middle schools, many more students would be apt to learn how to drive.

This will not happen for awhile due to our reluctancy to fund education. By keeping drivers off the road temporarily, we are just building a flood gate that will collapse in two years. That gate will be replaced by another (no driving until 21) that will break, as well. We have to teach driver's ed early if we want to prevent wrecks.

I can see where they are coming from with the feeding thing (only 10 percent of the "thing"'s energy is maintained when devoured by something else), but there is a balance to it all. If we eat what the animals eat, then wouldn't the animals die off anyway? That would also disrupt the balance.

We can't focus on perserving one thing: the only way to perserve an animal the way a vegan wants to is to perserve any and all sentient forms on the Earth (which means telling everyone and everything to eat less). Good luck.

At 8/15/05 12:48 AM, deadafterall wrote: Yeah Alchol isn't the best thing, especially when morons can't be reasonible and sensible, but right now we're talkin' about marijuana. So don't try to bring up alchol, tobacco, or what not, because it's off subject.

Well, don't forget about disorders that can drive somebody to become addicted to those, so that property can lead into marijuana. In fact, all of them have very similar side effects.
Unfortunatly, in order to get around in the world today, it seems that the only precedents we can use are the ones set by current pop culture (it sounds weird, but it's true).
I am, however, still with you on the whatnot part (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). It is because of what I just said that people aren't looking back to the time when marijuana was the answer to getting us out of the depression in a hurry. Imagine if we had that much money for a second at that time: the war could have been ended much earlier, we wouldn't have had to cause so much devastation just to get the other sides to surrender, crime would have been down (equaling less money into the prisons). We made a mistake with the stamp act.

At 6/2/05 08:58 AM, TurnipClock wrote: but thats what pain killers are for

You have a point, but some pain can't be stopped by simple pain killers. Marijuana is like one of the last lines of defense; I'll agree that there are more risks to it then normal pain killers, but it is much more effective and safer to take with other drugs (such as drugs for heart problems).

At 7/14/05 11:15 PM, spaceman_c0 wrote: Oh yeah prohibiton works let me tell you, just look up "The Prohibiton Act of 1920" and you'll see what might happen if cigarettes are illegalized

Uh, prohibition was for drinking. That probably wouldn't happen (for cigarettes) seeing:
A) Drinking is usually more accepted than smoking by people.
B) A cigarette is much easier to conceal, so we wouldn't need to develop technology or have to make many "moonshine cigarettes"
C) You can't hide the scent and smoke of a burning cigarette, so you wouldn't see the durastic jump in law enforcement officers; the "crooks" would be too easy to catch.

The way I see it, you can sensably compare a cigarette to a joint and a joint to a drink. However, it wouldn't make sense to compare a cigarette to a drink, which most people would think using this logic. I like this idea, but, unfortunatly, it does not acheive my end goal.

At 7/14/05 12:03 PM, Solthiel wrote: Sorry...this just isn't realistic. The reason weed isn't being legalized isn't because its harmful. Its because its 1. a gateway drug, and 2. If they legalize marijuana, what comes next? Petitions to legalize cocaine? Then what? Heroine? They have logically put their foot down at the first semi-harmful recreational drug. If alcohol would have been largely introduced in the same manner and age as weed has been, the same thing would happen.

Once again, check the other post. Can an admin like set up a single topic for this or soemthing?

This has happened before (stamp act=unconstitutional in the 60's). Read the conspiracy topic; it will tell you the truth. I hate it when people do not enter these forums without hard facts... This world is becoming so corrupted...

I guess since I have been so active in these topic that I should say this: I am not a drug user. I am just trying to make medicinal marijuana more readily availiable to those who NEED it. Sure, I would approve if people used the drug for small recreational use, but we would have to test it like alcohol. Technology needs to catch up for the world that I invision pertaining to drugs.

...I take it you never studied US History? Marijuana was legal for a time in the 60's when the stamp act was considered unconstitutional. It has happened before, it can happen again. I just wish I was old enough to sign the petition, because I would.

At 7/8/05 11:32 PM, xjohnwebsterx wrote: If pot were legal we could start using it for all sorts of other things besides smoking it. Paper, fuel, even cars. The whole reason it became illegal in the first place wasn't because it got you high, it was because it was a serious threat to big business because its a cheaper way to produce a better product.

Ok, good this is the first step to getting on track. We need to get a petition going in the UK and Canada (to make it more legal; maybe as legal as alcohol or cigarrettes). There is already a petition going for the US.

At 7/10/05 03:05 PM, Tragic_Mime wrote:

There IS no use for medical marijuana. There is no such thing! There is no medical use! The only thing that could even be CLOSE to a medical use is just to take away reaction time for taking shots.

SOMEBODY has never been in a science room I take. Look at the studies, look at the facts. If your so big, then tell me why America approved of marijuana in the early 30's?

At 7/8/05 04:13 PM, animecounty wrote:

:Its too late to make it legal btw jsut leave it as it is and have it for legal medical use for people who need it to cope with extremem pain.

Post that on the forum I put on one of my earlier posts; they actually have an American petition going. This one is to see and tackle any worldwide propaganda or corruption. If the reasons are valid, then our cause is lost. But if we can find reasons that it has been illegalized that aren't valid, we can win. Personally, I believe that it is not too late.

Ok, I'm glad we can be mature about our arguments. I'm sorry if I came on in a smart-ass or insultive manner.

You know what, Carnie? Calm down and stop cussing! If you want to be heard, then say your ideas in a polite manner. I was just saying how these issues affect us greatly since we are forced (if you will) to learn the manner in which they are enacted. No, I am not the best person with history. I can tell you anything you want to know WWII but government is my weakpoint (even though it is the first Social Studies class I've gotten an A in like 4 years, but that's besides the point; I'm just proud of that fact).

You know what, nobody is perfect. Don't come to me with stuff like "somebody with a PhD is perfect" (I couldn't resist that anecdote [probably misspelled] seeing as you used it). There is this one guy (we'll call him Fred since I can't remember his name) that on the last night he had to complete his thesis, he got drunk. It was late in the morning, so he got a bunch of his friends to roll him head over heels across a bridge. He was rolled about 12 1/2 times. He submitted, for his thesis, a new measurement called "freds" (or whatever the guy's name was). The bridge was 12 1/2 freds long. Guess what? He got is PhD. Case and point: just because somebody holds a title or a place in socity doesn't mean that they should be there or they're smart enough to be there; it can mean that they are just really lucky.

What I am getting at in this post is that your assaulting the personal integrity of someone you don't even know over nothing. So....STOP!

At 7/3/05 11:38 PM, _carnie_ wrote:

At 7/1/05 09:46 PM, V1master wrote: Now before I start I would like to tell everyone that I'm American...

Oh, God...

Anyway after reading about the new law about porn and seeing the other crap Bush has done I've decided that this country sucks majorly. Hell I'd rather be stuck playing socom with a 13 year old pretending to be gangsta or 1337 than have have Bush in office. The US will be a totalaterian(sp?) state in no time maybe even a thrid world country.

So I ask everybody what do you think about the US gov't now, what has annoyed you in particular and what do you think the future holds for America the formerly greatest country to live in.

What annoys me? 15 year olds who talk out their ass and spout propaganda. Perhaps you need to read up on your civics. The US is not a totalitarian state and will not be. Perhaps you should also do a bit of reading about your government, ask your teachers to give you a brief overview of the three branches of government and ask them with has the most power (none of them, they are all equal and separate). Bush is the president, he's the face- he does not control all. That seems to be the point that most of you Bush haters seem to miss.

You know what? there's no point in even trying to discuss this with you.

And third world? Seriously... what do they teach you in school nowdays? Do you even know what a thrid world country is? Where the term even originated? First world countries are industrialized, civilized democratic societies (US, Britain, France, etc...), second world countries are communist, socialist or fascist societies (China, N. Korea, Cuba), third world countries are everything else.

Please, for the love of God, go to the library and check out a few books, read them, then and only then, come back and maybe we'll talk.

...you know why it's the 15-17 year olds starting these conversations? That is because that is the age Americans are usually at once they complete their mandated American Government course. If this was a course that was mandated for colleges (which it will never be) then you would see many more college students spewing out what you call "propaganda". This is the truth, though. There are ways that branches can acheive power over others. It may be for just a couple of days, but it is long enough. Just look at the medicinal marijuana ban: Congress can't overturn that desicion without making an Amendment. There has only been 18 honest Amendments in the time the Bill of Rights has been out. Put that down your pipe and smoke it.

Sorry to double post, but I'm linking these threads (again). Go to the first post on this thread for the US conspiracy.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=289365&page=2

It looks like we can right the conspiracy in the US. We need the whole world's help though. If you know the reasons it is illegal in other countries, post here:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic.php?id=290774&page=6

At 7/1/05 11:57 AM, spruce1112 wrote: Sorry I didnt read the whole topic, but on the first page, I saw people talking about making cigarettes illegal. If a carton of cigarettes costs $20, probably $7 of that is tax. (I'm not sure on the number, but i know its really high). Making cigarettes illegal isnt going to stop people from smoking them, and the government makes too much money off of it. If the government legalized pot, but controlled the manufacturing of it, (i know, uncapitalist) then it would be cheaper for people to buy, and it would be cleaner, without all the pesticides and crap in it.

I know that's good and all, but we still need to know the true reasons that it is illegal in the UK and Canada. If the reasons are political, we will have a very strong foothold to make it legalized WORLDWIDE. That is what I'm trying to get at here; a worldwide attempt to legalize it will be much stronger than just in a single country.

I think a B class drug is like a Class II substance in America; it is highly not available, you can get it by perscription, but you will have no refills on it.

At 6/28/05 11:21 PM, DragonPirate wrote: the legalization of weed will never happen because the REALLY good shit is not made in america and thusly the american government wouldnt be making as much money off of it as they do on alcohol and ciggarettes

Once again, we have already covered that issue. Please, everybody. Let's steer clear of the US for awhile. We're looking for reasons why marijuana is illegal in countries such as the UK or Canada (it is still partially illegal there; highly illegal to grow it).

At 6/28/05 10:50 PM, psycho673 wrote: it causes cancer

As has been said to this in many posts in this topic:

THEN WHY HAVEN'T THEY BANNED CIGARETTES??

I think we should have a new rule that you have to read all of the posts in this article before you can post. We keep repeating points. Thus, this is getting nowhere. Keep posting reasons, though. Stupid reasons can lead others to realistic reasons.

At 6/27/05 11:40 PM, Nayr2 wrote: Okay, first off, while high, people lose the ability to make comprehensive decisions. "I have the munchies. Time to go to market!"

Next, The U.S. actually can lose money when you purchase pot, since most of the money ends up in the hands of the overseas providers.

Dude, have you even been reading this topic? We have rejected all that you have said here. In fact, the only reason we would lose money is because we screwed ourselves over in the first place: if we hadn't listened to our "friend" the papermaker (I forgot his name, but I just saw him on the History channel; the 30's guy), we would be the best producers of marijuana. Do you even know what nickname pot had in the early 30's? "America's BILLION dollar crop".

The link has been posted that will lead you to the real truth on marijuana. Look around my posts on page 5. Sorry I'm not giving credit to the poster of the truth and the person who put the link up; I can't see the forums right now.

I am going to say this again: we have a conclusion for why it is illegal in the US. We need to figure out the legit reasons for other countries. By legit, I don't mean all of this "driving high" BS we're getting. I know some of you know people who have or, in fact, have done it yourself, but the conclusion for US's laws are for other reasons. We have to look past stereotypes here, people!

I just read that post. Now all we need is the reasons it is illegal everywhere else. Then, we might be able to attack this problem ourselves.

I think we're missing the point in all of this. I think we should look at "Why marijuana is illegal?" We should debate that because if the true reason that it is illegal is not logical, then it should be legalized. I have an opinion about why it is illegal in America, but I have to check some dates before I post my opinion. Does anybody know the date that marijuana became illegal in America? How about illegal in other countries?

At 6/26/05 03:21 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote:
What the fuck is a centrist anyways? Can you qualify merely by holding one or two beliefs from the opposite side? How many makes you a bona fide centrist? Can your opinions and views be changed easily if you're centrist?

A centrist is sombody who is pretty even. There are these really good tests online that can help you to understand where you (are estimated) to fall under. I don't remember them at the moment, but I might post them later. In order to be one, not only must you be in between right and left wing, but you must also be in between a facist and an anarchist. Many people tend to stereotype political stances as right wing and left wing. Also, facism and communism are thought to be two totally different things, but you can have a facist communist (like Stalin). Anyway, getting back on topic...

Splitting up democrats and republicans probably wouldn't be a good idea. Even though both sides have good ideas, the policies of both sides get in the way of their common sense on many issues. This is why there are such fierce political debates: stringing out an issue into many pieces can make one side come to their senses.

In terms of if one side would overpower another, I don't know what to say. There are still many differing opinions of war, even if the wings were split. Let's say the Dali Llama (I know it's misspelled) and Stalin both lived when we did this. They would both be on the left wing side. Stalin isn't afraid to go to war and isn't afraid to make brash decisions that can kill his own soldiers. The Dali Llama, on the other hand, is a peaceful person.

In the terms of the utopia, I think we might make the lives for these people worse. Although we have pretty much removed debate between the two wings (in this test), we have magnified economical issues (I think that's the Facist v/s Anarchist category; somebody please correct me if I am wrong).

This experiment might seem like it would create a worldwide utopia in some people's minds, but in my mind, it has created a living hell full of yelling.

At 6/25/05 08:19 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 6/25/05 06:09 PM, SparkPlug3 wrote: Besides the fact that pot is a mind altering drug and inhibits peoples perceptions.

So does alchohol.... meh.

That was a screwed up quote. I didn't say that. Sorry about the confusion :(. I did say the exact same thing to that as you, though. I'm glad that somebody agrees with me.

At 6/19/05 12:53 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

Besides the fact that pot is a mind altering drug and inhibits peoples perceptions. What if someone runs out of munchies and needs to drive to 7-11 and hits a child witht he car becasue they were impared? What if for one of any number of reasons one of them gets behind a wheel for any reason? What about addicts who do B&E to feed their habit?

Its not as harmless as you think it is. yeah maybe you sit and chow down, but not everyone reacts teh same. Unless you can show me proof that it causes no harm to others I won't believe you, because everything ahrms someoen else (prostitution lows property values in the area they work in, property owners are now victims).

From what I am getting from you in this quote, it sounds like you also want to ban alcohol (I didn't mean that as an insult). Actually, marijuana could allow somebody who has major birth defects or has survived a major accident to complete jobs without screaming in pain and collapsing. The scream can throw off anybody nearby and, with enough pain, somebody who is driving could make a mistake if they are in pain. I know somebody is going to say to this "why are they driving in the first place?" I, too, am on a medicine that lets me lead a normal life without putting others in danger. It is called "ritalin", and if you think that somebody who has to take medicine in order to lead a normal life shouldn't drive or operate machinery, then you have over a million people to try and tell that to. This is one of the reasons we have medicine: to keep people from becoming dependant for as long as we can.

Everybody is seeing past the true purpose of pot here: MEDICINAL! The term "drug" only means that something has no nutritional value. Pot is one of the natural medicines in this world. It is still being used today as a pain killer. Unfortunatly, like many medicines, people are using it for pleasure, and since it is a natural drug, it is easy to obtain (in the same sense as an apple from a tree or a grape from a grapevine; not in the sense of "getting into a car, driving to the store, and buying it). If it wasn't as easy to obtain, then it might not be illegal in the first place.

What I am getting at here is that marijuana should be legalized and that people should GROW UP and either a) use it if they need it or b) use it for very small recreational use. I think (in the recreational sense) we should find a way to treat marijuana like alcohol (i.e. limits in the system unless if perscribed, etc.). I know there isn't technology for this, but we should find some. This would be hard, but it is possible.

However, don't assume that I'm pro-illegal drugs. People have been finding ways to alter this natural plant to better their high. That is wrong. Also, stuff like cocaine and meth are just attempts to also improve the highness level. Drugs should only be legal if they are beneficial (marijuana allows somebody to complete a job without screaming in pain, as an example, again) and should only be improved to improve the medicinal purpose.

At 6/23/05 05:48 PM, SkyCube wrote: You do know straight people can get HIV too, right?

I take it you did not read the disclaimer at the beginning of the post. My post was on opinions themselves, not certain opinions.

I'm going to say this right before I get into my opinion: I am an Atheist. I am opposed to many reilgions and many religious practices. Also, I am not using specific facts in this post in regards to homosexuality; I'm just making some stuff up as an example. That being said:

The Constitution, from the get-go, gives everybody the freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those two can corresopond with each other so often. It is totally ok to go around voicing your opinion based off of something as simple as a book that you worship, but it is not ok to create laws that force people to follow those practices. For instance, it is ok to say "I think homosexuality is wrong because the lord says so", but it is not ok to push a bill through congress that if passed, the only basis justifing it is religion. That infringes on the 1st Amendment. Now, it is ok (and I am just using this as an example) to pass a bill through congress with the basis of "homosexuality is wrong because the lord says so and that it helps to promote HIV". The HIV bit trumps the religious part since HIV affects everybody.

I am not trying to say anybody is dumb here. I'm just trying to promote what our fore fathers were trying to promote; the freedom to have rights.