At 4/8/11 08:16 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: What I wrote is off Websters you stupid twat.

You obviously have no idea what a dictionary is for, either.

A dictionary does not assign meaning to words. It provides definitions. Listing a bunch of definitions down means nothing.

At 4/8/11 08:51 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Synonyms and context is what is provides.

Which is what I just explained... to you. These ideas are fantasies. God is a fantasy yet he still has an entry in the dictionary.

The concept of fairness is indeed real.

You are arguing a frivolous point with vague words. Ideas and concepts are indeed real insofar as they exist in your brain -- they are fictional in the sense that they do not reflect actuality. There is no such thing as fairness; the state of affairs is such that it would be in your best interest to act equitably.

Legalize it. And then smoke it. And then look stupid and love it.

At 4/8/11 11:00 PM, KemCab wrote: Which is what I just explained... to you. These ideas are fantasies. God is a fantasy yet he still has an entry in the dictionary.

Sounds like somebody is breaking these law right now...

One issue with the US is that laws and enforcement can vary tremendously from state to state.

In my area of Canada, if you get caught with less than an ounce in a residence room (and you aren't selling it) then you'd basically get a slap on the wrist unless it was a consistent problem.

Right. And the difference between an ounce and a gram is almost 30 times as much.

X-Terrorist's quantity was "under a gram". First and foremost, cops and courts don't give a shit about the quality (or lack thereof) of weed. You could have the weakest shit on earth (male leaf for example) and get same punishment for the most potent shit on earth (and believe me, there's some REAL potent shit out there).

Does it matter if you drink 5 light-beers and drive, versus drinking the same quantity (liquid volume) of high-end spirits? FUCK YEAH! Then why is weed treated so differently?

For example "under a gram" of male leaf will hardly get a person stoned. You'd get a worse physical reaction being a non-smoker and having a whole single cigarette.

At 4/9/11 12:57 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: X-Terrorist's quantity was "under a gram". First and foremost, cops and courts don't give a shit about the quality (or lack thereof) of weed. You could have the weakest shit on earth (male leaf for example) and get same punishment for the most potent shit on earth (and believe me, there's some REAL potent shit out there).

Not sure about with marijuana, but with many otehr drugs potency is a sign of being a dealer...

Does it matter if you drink 5 light-beers and drive, versus drinking the same quantity (liquid volume) of high-end spirits? FUCK YEAH! Then why is weed treated so differently?

That's because drinking is legal, and driving tipsy is legal, but driving drunk is not. When ti comes to weed any of it is illegal. Just like for drinky drink and the kiddos. The legal limit for underage drunk driving is.000. Tht means drinking 1 beer versus a bath tub full of ethyl alcohol wouldn't make a wee bit of difference.

For example "under a gram" of male leaf will hardly get a person stoned. You'd get a worse physical reaction being a non-smoker and having a whole single cigarette.

Possession is possession.

At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Possession is possession.

Exactly,

Even if it's only useless stalk that couldn't even get a fly high.

Even if it's a strain that doesn't contain any THC.

Even if it's actually hemp, cos hemp looks like potent marijuana.

Under the alcohol prohibition days, did the cops didn't run around arresting everyone who made ginger beer?

At 4/9/11 02:54 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Just like for drinky drink and the kiddos. The legal limit for underage drunk driving is.000. Tht means drinking 1 beer versus a bath tub full of ethyl alcohol wouldn't make a wee bit of difference.

For me ^this^ comment says it all.

You are talking about teenagers. Kids old enough to drive. Kids not old enough to drink. You joke that drinking a "bathtub full of pure alcohol.. wouldn't make a difference". Saying that is so stupid it's not even funny. It makes me angry!

Clearly teenagers think they can drink like adults, because they're effectively saying "we're not kids!". Drinking heaps shows how tough and adult they are. Moreover, after a few mouthfuls, the alcohol takes over, and they keep on drinking until they run out or pass out. Basically teenagers don't realize that 1 single bottle of regular alcohol like vodka or rum or whiskey.. CAN KILL THEM DEAD!!! You know, bottles with beautiful happy people on the labels having the time of their lives at a wonderful party.

If one kid dies from drinking some cleaning liquid, it might even make the national news, then they respond by putting "POISON" and SKULLS on the label, and regulating that all cleaners have child proof lids.

However, nearly every week some kid dies drinking mom or dads bottle of cool looking alcohol, and it destroys whole families. Do they put so much as a warning on the label? Something telling kids "drink less than half a bottle and you're probably DEAD!". Do they?? NO, course they don't. Alcohol is immune from common sense on ALL levels, even labeling that it can KILL, which even tobacco is forced to do, with pictures of gross surgical procedures, and rotting flesh on the packets, even though smoking a WHOLE packet of tobacco WILL NOT KILL EVEN 1 CHILD, because they will most likely just vomit after 2 cigarettes.

THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL DOUBLE STANDARD!

KIDS ARE DYING FROM ALCOHOL AND WE'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.

At 4/9/11 09:31 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: THAT IS AN ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL DOUBLE STANDARD!

KIDS ARE DYING FROM ALCOHOL AND WE'RE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT.

You speak the truth.

The double standard pisses me off. I see people's lives being ruined by alcohol all around, and then I turn on the television and don't see shit about it. Yet some feel the effort, time, and money is needed to run the "above the influence" commercials demonizing marijuana.

At 4/9/11 11:03 PM, X-TERRORIST-X wrote: You speak the truth.

Meh, i don't feel like defendinbg the couble standard. That would involve a massive examination into the cultural values of either drug, as well as other points I am just too tired to argue.

The double standard pisses me off. I see people's lives being ruined by alcohol all around, and then I turn on the television and don't see shit about it. Yet some feel the effort, time, and money is needed to run the "above the influence" commercials demonizing marijuana.

And you haven't seen lives ruined by marijuana? They may not be as easy to see, but, trust me, they're there. College students like yourself who will vastly underachieve and waste a chunk of their potentional of the weed are all around. Not to mention the vast amount of pot smokers who toked away their chance at college and the only way to economic prosperity nowadays.

At 4/9/11 11:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And you haven't seen lives ruined by marijuana? They may not be as easy to see, but, trust me, they're there. College students like yourself who will vastly underachieve and waste a chunk of their potentional of the weed are all around. Not to mention the vast amount of pot smokers who toked away their chance at college and the only way to economic prosperity nowadays.

The things you are talking about are not a directly influenced by weed. If someone drinks too much and die, they die. The alcohol killed them. Such a direct impact on one's welfare does not happen with weed.

Wasted potential comes in many forms. If someone is a lazy piece of shit, and smokes weed, does he not get into college because he is a lazy piece of shit, or because he smokes weed?

The culture of smoking can attract the people whom you speak of. But is it fair to generalize all smokers to that category? I do not think so.

At 4/9/11 11:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: And you haven't seen lives ruined by marijuana? They may not be as easy to see, but, trust me, they're there.

;;;
I've never buried a friend for pot smoking abuse.
I have buried more than I care to talk about because of cocaine abuse.
I know 3 people in prison for crimes committed because of cocaine & crack, 2 of them are murderers. They weren't my best friends but we knew each other very well, partied in the same circles, had similar hobbies etc. they got into the Coke scene & their lives went to hell & so did the lives of their families !
I carried one of my best friends in high school to his grave , he died drinking & driving. I've buried 3 other friends because of drinking abuse.
The amount of people who have been incarcerated for alcohol fueled offenses, that are divorced & that I know personally is more than 10. Including my own divorce because my wife let drinking control her life !

I do not know one pot smoker who's dies from it.
I have a couple of friends I went to school with, they are rich, own successful businesses & have been pot smokers since grade 7. I have smoked pot. Yet went on to build my own successful business. I own property, my business is doing well & I still occassionally will smoke a joint with friends. Just like having a beer, I see no difference.

Marijuanna laws, do nothing to protect society, what are you trying to protect it from ????
The munchies ?
Pot isn't a drug, its a plant that people smoke, like tobacco...why isn't that illegal ?
Why aren't we 'protected' from that ?

The laws are not fair, they are antiquated & down right dum to the point of stupidity, if you compare it to the damage to families from alcohol abuse.

I don't think I'll "trust you" Camarohusky, some words posted anonymously on this web site, IMO doesn't deserve the trust in my own experiences. I've seen the bad & the worst that alcohol can do to a family...I lived through it.
I've seen some terrible consequences because of real drugs , like crack & cocaine these are real dangers.
What is not a danger is someone sitting back with a smile on their face smoking a spliff.

I know plenty of people who smoked weed through out high school and then went to college, university, and then smoked it all throughout those too.

they did fine.

Tory logic: *Plugs ears, closes eyes* LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALA

Look at all the lives around you, ruined by refined sugar and hydrogenated fat.

At school, my friend had so much potential. But then he discovered donuts. He developed diabetes and high blood pressure, which will almost certainly kill him. And he's only 23.

He used to be so good looking, he could've got anyone, but now his life chances are much lower because he's fat and smells of B.O.

He used to walk and ride his bike everywhere, now he can't get up the stairs without sweating.

Before anyone says 'you can't avoid these foodstuffs', yes you fucking can.

...

I've been smoking weed for about 8 years now. and have drank more than I should for about 5. Already, I can tell alcohol has damaged my physical fitness far more than cannabis ever could. The potential damage of vapourised cannabis, I would reckon, is somewhere below sugar and fat. Maybe as dangerous as hot drinks.

At 4/9/11 12:01 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 4/8/11 11:00 PM, KemCab wrote: Which is what I just explained... to you. These ideas are fantasies. God is a fantasy yet he still has an entry in the dictionary.

Sounds like somebody is breaking these law right now...

I just said in another thread that I don't smoke pot.

Actually, now that I think about it, abstract concepts are actually by definition unreal -- that is fictional. The idea does not really exist in your head; it is merely represented as a pattern of neurons or symbols or whatever. By the way, I'm going to knock this stupid "the concept of fairness is real" nonsense right out of the ballpark right now.

A symbol is composed of a signifier and its signified. With "cat," the word 'cat' itself is the signifier, the actual kitty is the signified. With "fairness," the signifier exists, but not the signified; it points to an abstract concept rather than a word; concepts do not manifest themselves in reality and therefore do not really exist. The only "real part" of "fairness" is the pixels that you see on your screen.

On top of which even if you could say that concepts were "real" things, "fairness" (or "freedom" or "democracy", etc.) is not even a concrete concept; it has a wildly varying definition based upon one's own moral principles and other predilections. The signified is highly variable; the word is essentially generally useless except for the purposes of negotiation and other trickery.

At 4/11/11 10:15 AM, KemCab wrote: I just said in another thread that I don't smoke pot.

In that case. Philosophy has no place in the law.

At 4/5/11 11:52 PM, Korriken wrote: not have this fuck the system

Oh yes because the laws aren't here for humanity.