Oh, no, he's just a stoner. He's a slacker. Let's just blow him off. All he wants to do is get high. Lay on the couch. Watch cartoons. Eat Doritos. Stinking hippy. He doesn't need it. He just can't handle reality. There are much better alternatives than marijuana, and big drug companies will sell them to you at a bargain rate. Honest!

And me? I don't have cancer. I just get depressed and pot cheers me up. But I could buy Prozac instead, or some of the other shit with a long list of side-effects, and it won't cost me much since I can't afford health insurance in the first place.

So I guess I'll just shut my mouth and go away, because my problems are funny.

GeeSussFreak, I commend you for not indulging in drugs, but take my word for it, booze and pot are nothing alike. The initial effect isn't alike, and the "come down" isn't the same, either.

And it's nothing like cocaine or meth, either.

I think your intentions are good but as a user of all of the above at one point or another in my life, I just want to let you know that none of them has very much in common.

Far and away, pot is the easiest on the body, mind, and spirit, except for maybe the short-term-memory impairments if you decide to be a total pot head.

The side effects of alcohol and pot can not fairly be called "nearly identical" at all.

It's a shame. This place used to have videos not about pot, the cops, pot, hating fox news, pot, and Ron Paul. Oh... and pot.

So deedub81 can neither handle a joint nor a drink and that's why he's gonna discourage all of us from enjoying these two things in moderation.

deedub81 and thepinky: You're completely missing the point this video is trying to make. It's not trying to say that it's ok to drive while stoned. The simple question is: Why is alcohol legal and pot illegal? This video explores the DUI aspect of this question and once again there's no good answer to it.

♫Don't go smoking waterfalls
Please stick to the grass and weed and pot that you're used to ♪

Furthermore, how in the blue hell can you put forth an argument against the legalisation of pot based on law enforcement redundancy? It's exactly the same as if we'd continued capital punishment because ridding ourselves of it would put hangmen out of business, not to mention all the large ceremonial axes that would suddenly go unsold. Then whetstones to sharpen them, gallows and rope sales would go down rapidly, gallows builders would have to retrain and possibly go on unemployment, our jails would get fuller, it's all a terrible terrible idea.

You need to have your head examined pal. There are SO many reasons for legalisation of cannibis, and i've yet to hear one against it other than "i don't like it" which often equates to "i don't know anything about it".

All this talk about addiction is fine, but what about alcohol addiction? What about tobacco addiction? You really, really need to think about that in detail and just exactly what the differences between tobacco and pot are. Pot is actually better for your long term health than tobacco, less easily habit forming, and there are no real solid proofs anywhere of mental health issues that i've come across to date. So it's better for you than tobacco, but it makes you giggle and/or trip out a little.

So does salvia, and THAT'S FUCKING LEGAL, WHERE IS THE FUCKING SENSE?

The next argument against pot we'll see is the "strong strains such as skunk are blah blah blah" well you can shove that right up your arse too. I've never tried skunk, never tried any kind of "super strong" strain of it. I've smoked some basic run of the mill weed which i could grow for myself, and i had an absolutely fantastic time doing it. I also alleviated a migraine with it. Never hurt anyone, never hurt myself, never woke up feeling like a sack of vomit and diareah unlike some legal social drugs, never stole anything in my life, never considered harder drugs (other than i'd love to try LSD in a controlled environment with supervision), and i'm pretty damn intelligent to boot.

Spare us all the bullshit and get right down to the truth - you're scared of something you don't understand and have never experienced, and why are you scared? Because that's how you've been brought up, indoctrinated, call it what you will.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^BillOreilly:
weed is for weak-minded fools, liberals in particular
I would never count someone a friend who had the immaturity to smoke a mind-altering drug

Yes, unlike you, how dare they have a mind to alter?
Pot smokers tend to be free thinkers and that's part of the reason the establishment pushes this drug war shit.
In a way, it's a question of keeping people in line and knowing who's "out of line" and pot smoking is an easy and shitty way for the power-fucks to know who is who.
Every anti-pot person I've ever met in my life was a fucking bone-head.


Plus if you give all the free thinking pot-heads a criminal record, and make them felons, they won't be able to Vote.

>> ^BillOreilly:
weed is for weak-minded fools, liberals in particular
I would never count someone a friend who had the immaturity to smoke a mind-altering drug


Yes, unlike you, how dare they have a mind to alter?

Pot smokers tend to be free thinkers and that's part of the reason the establishment pushes this drug war shit.

In a way, it's a question of keeping people in line and knowing who's "out of line" and pot smoking is an easy and shitty way for the power-fucks to know who is who.

Every anti-pot person I've ever met in my life was a fucking bone-head.

allso there are some negatives with smoking anny drug and pot dose have negative afects on some people metaly you cannot ignore thouse facts, evan if it is alot safer than alchole.

Awesome sift, trailers these days are basically summaries of the movie. NOT GOOD. ME NO LIKEY. Every trailer I stumble into watching gives away two if not three plot points. Take one of my favorite movies of late: Pineapple Express. In the trailer you see Seth Rogan witness the murder, run away, and get revenge. In like a 30 second trailer you get the whole plot and most of the best jokes. Don't get me wrong, I laffed hard when I saw those jokes for the 10th or 15th time when I finally went to see it, but I might've laffed harder if they'd just suggested it was a movie about guns and pot. And I STILL WOULD HAVE GONE TO SEE IT. Maybe it's just me, but show a spliff, a Desert Eagle, write SETH ROGAN over the top for 30 seconds and I'm buying whatever that is selling.

btw here's my recipe for brownies.

I should have got back to this thread earlier but a couple of quick comments should be made I'd guess.

deedub81, small problem with the study you point to and others like it, and it's one that almost any scientist would grant as a problem if you asked them about it. Couple of problems actually.

First and biggest problem is that it doesn't refer in any way to a blind or controlled study but to a self selected group. Some never try pot at all and some try it and get bored, quit. Some stick with it. What is the difference between them? Is it possible or even likely that there was a difference between them to start with?

Problem with self selected groups is that it tells us nothing about the subject as it relates to the population as a whole. It just tells us about that group. Most people taking nitro have heart problems but the nitro didn't cause it, in the same vein it's possible or even likely that the higher incidence of problems among pot smokers is an indication of attempts to self medicate rather than an indication that it's the source of the problem. We need controlled studies rather than self selected groups to find out more about it.

Second problem is that it's badly overstated. The chance of psychotic disorders among the population as a whole is almost nothing. Almost nothing times 1.41 is still almost nothing. Almost nothing times 2 is still almost nothing. For the vast majority there would be little risk even if pot was a "cause" of problems and pot wouldn't be alone there. Alcohol also has the same effect on a small number of people. Treating equivalent risks in a legally equivalent manner seems reasonable to me but that's not what we're doing. We're treating the one we wonder about more harshly than the one we know is dangerous. Some rethinking of the laws concerned seems due even if the fears are right and it's as bad as alcohol is. I don't think it is though, studied heavily since the 60's and this uncontrolled self selected maybe is the best we've got so far.

On pot growing 24 hours a day, yes it does. So do humans, even when we sleep. Some plants need that sleep or rest period more than others and some in different ways. The Poinsettia we all see in the Christmas season is similar in a way, it won't develop the red color we associate with it if not given long nights. If that dark period is interrupted or cut short it stays green instead of red. With pot the difference is in if it flowers or how strongly it flowers. Nothing but long days and it won't flower at all or might produce a few stray small ones but no real "buds". With long nights but not long enough or occasionally interrupted nights it might flower weakly but not as well as it should and the chance of producing male flowers on a female plant goes up with confused lighting periods.

I think we should take up a collection, like in church. Once there is enough money in it to send theo47 to good a southern Baptist seminary, we should announce our plans to donate the monies instead to the WWF, but at the last minute, spend it on beer and pot.


got one, how about the delay when posting a comment, with "please wait" indefinately, then frustration, cut and paste and try again, only to find both posts there...How to Eliminate A Duplicate Comment Post?....(probly' me not paying attention )

*nsfw - boobies and shagging and pot oh my!