Vapor Lounge

[KatMaestro]

Smoking weed (non-medical) is illegal in Canada. I live in a rented townhouse and about week ago the owner asked me to stop smoking weed. So they have these "safe zones" for stoners call vapor lounge. The closest vapor lounge in the area doesn't allow me to bring my own bong. Instead they rent you a bong for $15 one entry. Hell, being stoned is even more expensive that drinking vodka.

There is no place for a stoner in this society. You can't live a life of a law abiding citizen while getting high. It has been a secret so far that people from my workplace don't know about me being stoner. A cop once searched me because my clothes had the smell. Tobacco kills way more people than cannabis, yet it's totally legal...

Do you have any place similar to vapor lounge in your area? What's it like to be a stoner in the area that cannabis is illegal?

[Xenomit]

Huh, I thought Canada was a lot more open to stoners, all the liberal media portrays them as some kind of open minded paradise that lets anyone do anything as long as it doesn't harm others.

You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

[LOLIMKEWL]

At 3/30/14 04:03 AM, Xenomit wrote: Huh, I thought Canada was a lot more open to stoners, all the liberal media portrays them as some kind of open minded paradise that lets anyone do anything as long as it doesn't harm others.

You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

furry pls

[Richard]

At 3/30/14 04:03 AM, Xenomit wrote:
You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

Yeah! Fuck people like Carl Sagan and Edmond Halley! Fuck those stoners!

[JKMonkey]

At 3/30/14 04:00 AM, Elitistinen wrote:
There is no place for a stoner in this society. You can't live a life of a law abiding citizen while getting high.

well no shit, you can't be a law-abiding citizen if your breaking the law

[DoctorStrongbad]

Places in the USA have legal weed.

[KatMaestro]

At 3/30/14 02:23 PM, JKMonkey wrote:
well no shit, you can't be a law-abiding citizen if your breaking the law

I guess it'll be this way then...

[Makakaov]

At 3/30/14 10:44 AM, Richard wrote:

At 3/30/14 04:03 AM, Xenomit wrote:
You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

Yeah! Fuck people like Carl Sagan and Edmond Halley! Fuck those stoners!

Implying they were famous scientists just because they smoked pot. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you anyone anyhow more valuable to society except the cases when someone needs to use you, and not in the way quality tools are used.

If you want, we can even make lists of famous people devoted to science and knowledge who smoked pot, and who didn't.

[Richard]

At 3/30/14 02:28 PM, Makakaov wrote:

At 3/30/14 10:44 AM, Richard wrote:

At 3/30/14 04:03 AM, Xenomit wrote:
You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

Yeah! Fuck people like Carl Sagan and Edmond Halley! Fuck those stoners!

Implying they were famous scientists just because they smoked pot. Smoking marijuana doesn't make you anyone anyhow more valuable to society except the cases when someone needs to use you, and not in the way quality tools are used.

If you want, we can even make lists of famous people devoted to science and knowledge who smoked pot, and who didn't.

I'm not implying anything except that they were scientists, and that they were stoners. There is no because. Just that they are both.

[Makakaov]

At 3/30/14 02:30 PM, Richard wrote: I'm not implying anything except that they were scientists, and that they were stoners. There is no because. Just that they are both.

If You don't disagree with my statements then following logic it means that the fact that they smoked marijuana is not relevant anyhow to the fact, that they were famous approved scientists. You tried to play the "They were stoners and brilliand people" card, which implied that if I say "fuck stoners" I also have to disagree with Sagan's and Halley's theories and makings. It doesn't work that way buddy, it's a logical failure.

[Entice]

At 3/30/14 04:03 AM, Xenomit wrote: You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

Except for the part where our society is already full of them. I mean come on, hasn't something like 50% of Americans tried weed at least once? We like to stereotype people, but there's not a specific "type" of person that does it, all sorts of people smoke. It's just hidden because of its legal status.

[Entice]

At 3/30/14 02:34 PM, Makakaov wrote: If You don't disagree with my statements then following logic it means that the fact that they smoked marijuana is not relevant anyhow to the fact, that they were famous approved scientists. You tried to play the "They were stoners and brilliand people" card, which implied that if I say "fuck stoners" I also have to disagree with Sagan's and Halley's theories and makings. It doesn't work that way buddy, it's a logical failure.

If you're saying "fuck stoners" and "stoners" includes Sagan and Halley, then you're saying "fuck Sagan and Halley". Even though they did nothing wrong and contributed quite a bit to society, which you admit. See the problem here?

[Richard]

At 3/30/14 02:34 PM, Makakaov wrote:

At 3/30/14 02:30 PM, Richard wrote: I'm not implying anything except that they were scientists, and that they were stoners. There is no because. Just that they are both.

If You don't disagree with my statements then following logic it means that the fact that they smoked marijuana is not relevant anyhow to the fact, that they were famous approved scientists. You tried to play the "They were stoners and brilliand people" card, which implied that if I say "fuck stoners" I also have to disagree with Sagan's and Halley's theories and makings. It doesn't work that way buddy, it's a logical failure.

There's no definition really for the pejorative term 'fuck' in the context that it's being used. So you can't really say that my logic is wrong when I'm not really saying anything other than a general insult towards them. My logical failure is in fact, not a logical failure, when I am saying that these guys are stoners, OP is insulting stoners, and therefore, OP is insulting those scientists as well.

[Xenomit]

At 3/30/14 02:36 PM, Entice wrote: Except for the part where our society is already full of them.

Just because a lot of young teenagers and college aged students do it, doesn't mean society is full of them.

I mean come on, hasn't something like 50% of Americans tried weed at least once?

That doesn't mean society is full of potheads.

We like to stereotype people, but there's not a specific "type" of person that does it, all sorts of people smoke. It's just hidden because of its legal status.

Yes there is, weed culture exists for a reason, and it's absolutely fucking horrid. The kind of unproductive carefree bullshit that potheads and weed culture emanates is actually poison to society, and the day that is becomes completely acceptable is the day I will have lost every shred of hope for the future of humanity.

[Makakaov]

At 3/30/14 02:38 PM, Entice wrote:

At 3/30/14 02:34 PM, Makakaov wrote: If You don't disagree with my statements then following logic it means that the fact that they smoked marijuana is not relevant anyhow to the fact, that they were famous approved scientists. You tried to play the "They were stoners and brilliand people" card, which implied that if I say "fuck stoners" I also have to disagree with Sagan's and Halley's theories and makings. It doesn't work that way buddy, it's a logical failure.

If you're saying "fuck stoners" and "stoners" includes Sagan and Halley, then you're saying "fuck Sagan and Halley". Even though they did nothing wrong and contributed quite a bit to society, which you admit. See the problem here?

Saying "fuck stoners" is an expression of hate on stoners, but for their activity that makes them stoners - that is smoking marijuana. In our understanding "Fuck stoners" and "Fuck Carl Sagan" can mean almost the same, but "fuck stoners" is more of a hate on the activity, "Fuck Carl Sagan" is direct hate on a person and perhaps everything connected with that people.

Besides, I can say "Fuck Carl Sagan", and still agree with his theories.

See the solution here?

[Richard]

At 3/30/14 02:42 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 3/30/14 02:36 PM, Entice wrote: Except for the part where our society is already full of them.

Just because a lot of young teenagers and college aged students do it, doesn't mean society is full of them.

I mean come on, hasn't something like 50% of Americans tried weed at least once?

That doesn't mean society is full of potheads.

We like to stereotype people, but there's not a specific "type" of person that does it, all sorts of people smoke. It's just hidden because of its legal status.

Yes there is, weed culture exists for a reason, and it's absolutely fucking horrid. The kind of unproductive carefree bullshit that potheads and weed culture emanates is actually poison to society, and the day that is becomes completely acceptable is the day I will have lost every shred of hope for the future of humanity.

Because all weed culture is centered entirely around being unproductive. Rather than you know, being able to have an alternative perspective on things to enhance creativity and problem solving ability. It is completely acceptable in many regions of the world, and it is gaining more traction by the day.

Fact: College students who smoke weed and only weed get higher grades than those who smoke weed and tobacco, or those who smoke only tobacco.

[Xenomit]

At 3/30/14 02:44 PM, Richard wrote: Because all weed culture is centered entirely around being unproductive. Rather than you know, being able to have an alternative perspective on things to enhance creativity and problem solving ability.

Yeah, you're right. All of it is centered entirely around people who don't care about anything but weed sitting around and pretending to have intellectual conversations, when actually they're just babbling a bunch of retarded bullshit while high.

Pumping your brain full of THC doesn't make you any smarter, any more creative, or any more intellectual. If anything, it makes you the opposite over time.

[Richard]

At 3/30/14 02:43 PM, Makakaov wrote:

At 3/30/14 02:38 PM, Entice wrote:

At 3/30/14 02:34 PM, Makakaov wrote: If You don't disagree with my statements then following logic it means that the fact that they smoked marijuana is not relevant anyhow to the fact, that they were famous approved scientists. You tried to play the "They were stoners and brilliand people" card, which implied that if I say "fuck stoners" I also have to disagree with Sagan's and Halley's theories and makings. It doesn't work that way buddy, it's a logical failure.

If you're saying "fuck stoners" and "stoners" includes Sagan and Halley, then you're saying "fuck Sagan and Halley". Even though they did nothing wrong and contributed quite a bit to society, which you admit. See the problem here?

Saying "fuck stoners" is an expression of hate on stoners, but for their activity that makes them stoners - that is smoking marijuana. In our understanding "Fuck stoners" and "Fuck Carl Sagan" can mean almost the same, but "fuck stoners" is more of a hate on the activity, "Fuck Carl Sagan" is direct hate on a person and perhaps everything connected with that people.

Besides, I can say "Fuck Carl Sagan", and still agree with his theories.

I never stated that "Fuck Carl Sagan" meant a disagreement with his theories. You however, are jumping to that conclusion. I'm simply using the following:

Carl Sagan is a stoner.
The statement fuck stoners means all stoners, and is an insult.
Therefore, when you insult stoners as a whole, you are also saying insulting Carl Sagan, due to the fact that he was part of that demographic.

A stoner or stoners is a person or a group.
Stoning is the activity which you are referring to. Two different concepts. One is a person or persons, the other is an activity.

[Richard]

At 3/30/14 02:49 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 3/30/14 02:44 PM, Richard wrote: Because all weed culture is centered entirely around being unproductive. Rather than you know, being able to have an alternative perspective on things to enhance creativity and problem solving ability.

Yeah, you're right. All of it is centered entirely around people who don't care about anything but weed sitting around and pretending to have intellectual conversations, when actually they're just babbling a bunch of retarded bullshit while high.

Pumping your brain full of THC doesn't make you any smarter, any more creative, or any more intellectual. If anything, it makes you the opposite over time.

I'm sure you can prove this with a peer reviewed scientific article on an experiment that proves just that.

Rather than you know, just spouting more bullshit conclusions that you have jumped to without any real thought.

[WiiFittoToreinaa]

It's legal in my state washington so I wouldn't know about that.

I don't smoke anyways.

[DoctorStrongbad]

I have seen at least two different weed based topics today. Today must be weed day.

[WiiFittoToreinaa]

At 3/30/14 03:26 PM, DoctorStrongbad wrote: I have seen at least two different weed based topics today. Today must be weed day.

It's on 4/20

[AxTekk]

At 3/30/14 04:03 AM, Xenomit wrote: You are right, there's no place for a stoner in this society. And I hope it stays that way.

Your ideas of what it means to smoke pot are pretty mislead. How many people do you know who smoke regularly? How much of your view is based off of TV and film?

I love smoking weed with my friends. Not all the time, and not for days on days and weeks on weeks, but I love smoking weed with my friends. In my experience, it makes people less socially inhibited while actually making them less angry and reckless. It makes people less embarrassed about trying to think about things philosophically, even if they aren't Wittgenstein or even Yogi Berra. Wider society's reaction to this is telling - If your first instinct to someone trying to think deeply is to tell them to shut up rather than point out whatever's annoying you about how they think, you need to ask yourself what you think you're contributing.

It's also telling that most people's biggest problem with weed is that it might (like anything) in large doses make someone unproductive. If someone's got a job, is on top of their studies etc why do you care if they're smoking weed or playing videogames? Weed's been around longer, it engenders better appreciation for art and culture AND you're interested in holding a conversation with your friends while you're high.

If a person lives their life with the sole focus being a certain leisure activity, they have bigger problems than that activity. Judging the activity by what casual doers say and think about it, and how people act whilst partaking is smarter. Why does weed bother you so much? You come off pretty socially malcontent

[AxTekk]

At 3/30/14 04:00 AM, Elitistinen wrote: There is no place for a stoner in this society. You can't live a life of a law abiding citizen while getting high. It has been a secret so far that people from my workplace don't know about me being stoner. A cop once searched me because my clothes had the smell.

It's either this or Benson & Hedges etc take over the market, and weed loses any soul it once had. I'm honestly not sure what I'd prefer. I think right now I just want to see weed decriminalised, legalisation can come later.

[Xenomit]

At 3/30/14 10:13 PM, AxTekk wrote:

I get so absolutely tired of people using the "Weed makes you a better person" argument.

It's in some ways similar to the "Alcohol makes you have more fun argument.

You don't need weed to do any of the things that you stated. If you need drugs to improve your ability to socialize, and be cultural and and more creative, then you clearly have something wrong with you. You don't need a 3rd party aid (weed) to make you enjoy art more and have interesting conversations with your friends.

[Sense-Offender]

Weed topics are powerful Xeno magnets.

[AxTekk]

At 3/30/14 11:18 PM, Xenomit wrote: You don't need weed to do any of the things that you stated. If you need drugs to improve your ability to socialize, and be cultural and and more creative, then you clearly have something wrong with you. You don't need a 3rd party aid (weed) to make you enjoy art more and have interesting conversations with your friends.

Of course you don't need weed to be creative, philosophical and social. You also don't need ketchup to enjoy your burger, sugar to enjoy your cereal, to turn up your music to rock out or handcuffs and a whip to have some good no-clothes fun.

So using those things is stupid right?

You're better than this Xenomit. Engage your critical faculties.

[AxTekk]

At 3/30/14 11:18 PM, Xenomit wrote: It's in some ways similar to the "Alcohol makes you have more fun argument.

Also, alcohol really can help you have more fun. There's really no debate that certain substances enhance your enjoyment of certain situations... I mean, hell, if you'd rather do shit sober 100% of the time, more power to you. What's your problem with people who do choose to use though?

At 3/30/14 11:39 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Weed topics are powerful Xeno magnets.

Fun is a powerful hater magnet, my friend.

[Darthdenim]

I don't approve of drug culture.

[AxTekk]

At 3/30/14 11:52 PM, Darthdenim wrote: I don't approve of drug culture.

What music do you listen to?