From what I hear they'll have a few broken limbs to go with it.
No, the 'responsible user' knows this is the status quo and does it regardless.Pubic wrote:
Citing problems caused by marijuana's illegal status as justification for the continuation of that illegal status is absurd, nonsensical, and completely irrational.
Breaking the law is irresponsible, disregarding the law in the knowledge there are consequences is also irresponsible.
Breaking the law and saying 'well if it weren't illegal there wouldn't be consequences, so I'm going to pretend they aren't my fault' is absurd, nonsensical, and completely irrational.
Same as if I sell a gun to someone without a license, just because I don't think people should need licenses and the law is an ass, or that any consequences are somehow nothing to do with me.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 03:09:21)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Well then he's not just an academic, is he?Bertster7 wrote:
It's nothing to do with them simply being academics. The people whose opinion I'm going with are experts.
Consultant to the White House on Drug Control Policy, Consultant to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Chair of the Council on Illicit Drugs, Professor at a number of reputed medical universities and Harvard Med School graduate, former sheriff and private detective and has worked on a number of presidential drug task forces.
I'd say that makes him an expert.
Did you miss the part about choosing to break a law simply for convenience/personal pleasure?Bertster7 wrote:
Why? If there are no consequences, how is it irresponsible?
It's as much an ethical question as anything else. Do you do the right (responsible) thing even when nobody is looking?
And how well do you know them? Do you know what activities the money you provide them funds? Can you say that with absolute surety that they aren't doing anything "bad" with the money you've given them because you've chosen to violate a law for your own convenience/pleasure?cBertster7 wrote:
Bullshit. That's a very naive perspective. For example, 90% of weed smoked in the UK is grown domestically. I always know where weed I buy is grown and usually know the people who are growing it.Dilbert_X wrote:
And there are always consequences, the 'recreational user' is funding the mayhem going on in Mexico and Afghanistan for example.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No, I'm not assuming that. It doesn't matter whether the law is "just and fair" in your estimation. Until it is changed, it IS the law and violating it simply because you don't like it and it infringes on your ability to get baked is irresponsible behavior.Pubic wrote:
You're assuming the law is always just and fair. If that were the case, we'd never need to change laws yet it happens all the time, ergo laws aren't always just and fair.FEOS wrote:
Yes, there is. Choosing to do something that you know violates the law simply for your own pleasure is irresponsible at best, sociopathic at worst.
I don't think he's trying to justify keeping it illegal. He's explaining that there's no such thing as a "no consequence recreational user". Which dovetails quite nicely with my thoughts on irresponsible behavior.Pubic wrote:
Citing problems caused by marijuana's illegal status as justification for the continuation of that illegal status is absurd, nonsensical, and completely irrational.Dilbert_X wrote:
Members of society don't get to pick and choose which bits of the law to follow and which to ignore. Its irresponsible to do otherwise
And there are always consequences, the 'recreational user' is funding the mayhem going on in Mexico and Afghanistan for example.
I have no issues with legalization of pot. I'm fine with it. I do have a problem with people trying to justify breaking a law by saying "well it shouldn't be illegal, so I'm not going to follow the law...but I'm 'responsible' about willfully violating the law simply for my own personal pleasure/convenience, so it's OK."
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Perhaps I could have clarified what I was getting at by being a little more surgical with my quotingDilbert_X wrote:
No, the 'responsible user' knows this is the status quo and does it regardless.Pubic wrote:
Citing problems caused by marijuana's illegal status as justification for the continuation of that illegal status is absurd, nonsensical, and completely irrational.
Breaking the law is irresponsible, disregarding the law in the knowledge there are consequences is also irresponsible.
Breaking the law and saying 'well if it weren't illegal there wouldn't be consequences, so I'm going to pretend they aren't my fault' is absurd, nonsensical, and completely irrational.
Same as if I sell a gun to someone without a license, just because I don't think people should need licenses and the law is an ass, or that any consequences are somehow nothing to do with me.
You referred to the problems being experienced in Afghanistan and Mexico, which relate to the drug trade.And there are always consequences, the 'recreational user' is funding the mayhem going on in Mexico and Afghanistan for example.
Those problems are a consequence of the illegality of said drugs - which in the context of this discussion means marijuana. Given that those problems are a consequence of illegality, do you suppose that those problems would remain if marijuana was illegal? Come on Dilby, you could help fight crime, and help fight terrorism by growing your own! What are the cartels and the taleban going to do when their source of income is cut off? They'll be fucked!
Incidently, and OT, what are the laws like in your part of the world concerning gun lisencing?
You can't assume the law is responsible. If it contravenes common sense, then it can be argued that the law is irresponsible, and I argue that current MJ laws are irresponsible by virtue of their reasoning/justification being flawed.FEOS wrote:
No, I'm not assuming that. It doesn't matter whether the law is "just and fair" in your estimation. Until it is changed, it IS the law and violating it simply because you don't like it and it infringes on your ability to get baked is irresponsible behavior.
Talk of 'responsible use' generally presupposes legality, unless its stated otherwise. But I getcha..I don't think he's trying to justify keeping it illegal. He's explaining that there's no such thing as a "no consequence recreational user". Which dovetails quite nicely with my thoughts on irresponsible behavior.
I have no issues with legalization of pot. I'm fine with it. I do have a problem with people trying to justify breaking a law by saying "well it shouldn't be illegal, so I'm not going to follow the law...but I'm 'responsible' about willfully violating the law simply for my own personal pleasure/convenience, so it's OK."
I don't condone pot smoking but there are way more harmful things out there than pot. I wish people could be just honest about it instead of just twisting the so-called "facts" to fit their agenda. Yeah, Marijuana is harmful. So is eating fatty foods, so is smoking tobacco, so is driving too fast. The problem is that there are the pro-marijuana groups who say things like "marijuana is not addictive" while the anti marijuana league say "marijuana is harmful" and everyone else is left wondering what to believe.
Here are my responses to the "facts" in the OP.
Marijuana is first and foremost a drug. Drugs have negative side effects. Anything has negative side effects. Marijuana's side effects should be taken into account when faced with the question of "should I smoke marijuana".
Marijuana is not an incredibly addictive drug but that does not mean it is not addictive.
There are measures parents can take to stop their kids from trying Marijuana but at the end of the day it's going to be down to what party they're at, how experimental they're feeling and possibly, how much they've had to drink. Either way its not the end of the world. Making sure kids are fully and accurately informed about marijuana and it's side effects is far more important than filling their heads full of scare tactics about how it'll melt their brain and leave them impotent in an attempt to stop them from trying it.
There are long term consequences of continual marijuana use just like there are long-term consequences for smoking or drinking to excess or eating badly and this is something that should be considered when faced with the question of whether one wants to smoke a joint. One joint most likely won't give you short term memory loss in the same way that smoking one cigarette most likely won't give you lung cancer. It's still something that should be taken into account.
Marijuana's "popularity" has nothing to do with anything. It is avaliable, people smoke it.
Young kids may be exposed to marijuana. As previously stated it is therefore important for them to be informed. At the end of he day there's only so mach you can do. Either way it's not a total disaster - there are far worse thngs that can happen.
Parents, regardeless of whether they smoked pot in the past or not, should never tell their kids to not smoke marijuana. By all means say it's not a good idea or that you don't aprove but telling someone they can't do something is the one thing that will make them want to do it. Even if you try to police it it's not going to help it's just going to make a kid more secretive so that if there is a problem a parent will not be able to help. Parents informing their kids is stll the most important thing as well as parents realising that yeah, their kid probably will smoke pot one day and that it's not the end of the world.
Unskewed, truthful and accurate information is what is needed. Honesty. Not advertisments with a fried egg and the caption "this is your brain on drugs".
I'm going to finish this unexpected rambling with this quote as an example.
"Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and ...it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but... Well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored and... it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or... being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything."
- Randy Marsh.
Here are my responses to the "facts" in the OP.
Marijuana is first and foremost a drug. Drugs have negative side effects. Anything has negative side effects. Marijuana's side effects should be taken into account when faced with the question of "should I smoke marijuana".
Marijuana is not an incredibly addictive drug but that does not mean it is not addictive.
There are measures parents can take to stop their kids from trying Marijuana but at the end of the day it's going to be down to what party they're at, how experimental they're feeling and possibly, how much they've had to drink. Either way its not the end of the world. Making sure kids are fully and accurately informed about marijuana and it's side effects is far more important than filling their heads full of scare tactics about how it'll melt their brain and leave them impotent in an attempt to stop them from trying it.
There are long term consequences of continual marijuana use just like there are long-term consequences for smoking or drinking to excess or eating badly and this is something that should be considered when faced with the question of whether one wants to smoke a joint. One joint most likely won't give you short term memory loss in the same way that smoking one cigarette most likely won't give you lung cancer. It's still something that should be taken into account.
Marijuana's "popularity" has nothing to do with anything. It is avaliable, people smoke it.
Young kids may be exposed to marijuana. As previously stated it is therefore important for them to be informed. At the end of he day there's only so mach you can do. Either way it's not a total disaster - there are far worse thngs that can happen.
Parents, regardeless of whether they smoked pot in the past or not, should never tell their kids to not smoke marijuana. By all means say it's not a good idea or that you don't aprove but telling someone they can't do something is the one thing that will make them want to do it. Even if you try to police it it's not going to help it's just going to make a kid more secretive so that if there is a problem a parent will not be able to help. Parents informing their kids is stll the most important thing as well as parents realising that yeah, their kid probably will smoke pot one day and that it's not the end of the world.
Unskewed, truthful and accurate information is what is needed. Honesty. Not advertisments with a fried egg and the caption "this is your brain on drugs".
I'm going to finish this unexpected rambling with this quote as an example.
"Well, Stan, the truth is marijuana probably isn't gonna make you kill people, and ...it most likely isn't gonna fund terrorism, but... Well son, pot makes you feel fine with being bored and... it's when you're bored that you should be learning some new skill or discovering some new science or... being creative. If you smoke pot you may grow up to find out that you aren't good at anything."
- Randy Marsh.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
He's an academic studying in that field. I wouldn't cite the views of a completely irrelevant academic, because that would be pointless.FEOS wrote:
Well then he's not just an academic, is he?Bertster7 wrote:
It's nothing to do with them simply being academics. The people whose opinion I'm going with are experts.
Consultant to the White House on Drug Control Policy, Consultant to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Chair of the Council on Illicit Drugs, Professor at a number of reputed medical universities and Harvard Med School graduate, former sheriff and private detective and has worked on a number of presidential drug task forces.
I'd say that makes him an expert.
I didn't miss that part, but I still do not agree that simply breaking a law is in itself irresponsible.FEOS wrote:
Did you miss the part about choosing to break a law simply for convenience/personal pleasure?Bertster7 wrote:
Why? If there are no consequences, how is it irresponsible?
It's as much an ethical question as anything else. Do you do the right (responsible) thing even when nobody is looking?
It's not about right and wrong, because that's not what the law is. Legal does not mean moral and the reverse is also true. Nor is responsibility simply about right and wrong. It is more a case of due care and diligence.
Very well, lived with one of them for six months and another is one of my ex's. The misconception by all those who don't have a real world understanding of these things is that all money from drugs funds crime. Not that a large amount of weed is grown by students trying to pay their way through university (which much of it is - but certainly not most).FEOS wrote:
And how well do you know them? Do you know what activities the money you provide them funds? Can you say that with absolute surety that they aren't doing anything "bad" with the money you've given them because you've chosen to violate a law for your own convenience/pleasure?cBertster7 wrote:
Bullshit. That's a very naive perspective. For example, 90% of weed smoked in the UK is grown domestically. I always know where weed I buy is grown and usually know the people who are growing it.Dilbert_X wrote:
And there are always consequences, the 'recreational user' is funding the mayhem going on in Mexico and Afghanistan for example.
I should make it clear that I'm not in any way, shape or form trying to claim that the majority of drug use is responsible, because that is patently untrue. But using drugs is not automatically irresponsible and the argument that illegal = irresponsible doesn't hold much water. Just like you can drink responsibly, you can obtain and take drugs responsibly.
I sincerely doubt that anyone here has never broken a law.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-10 05:48:58)
The current situation is drugs are illegal.Pubic wrote:
Those problems are a consequence of the illegality of said drugs - which in the context of this discussion means marijuana.
The consequence of Americans buying drugs - pot, cocaine, heroin - is that money flows to the Mexican drug gangs as one example - which they use to fund their mayhem in Mexico.
The consequence of Europeans buying drugs is money flows to various gangsters and the Taliban.
The consequences of Australians buying drugs is money flows to the bikies and various unsavoury groups across Asia.
You can argue legalisation would remove the above problem, but you can't say the average recreational user currently does so responsibly and without consequence.
(Obviously if you happen to know exactly where your drugs come from and know for sure its not from real gangsters then the above doesn't apply - but generally speaking thats not the case. Uniformly not in the case of drugs harder than pot.)
Of course its unlikely, but its only a few who are advocating breaking the law routinely because its inconvenient to their recreation.Bertster wrote:
I sincerely doubt that anyone here has never broken a law.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Ohhh! They're criminals! So what? They pay taxes on their other earnings, if they have any. It'd be pretty stupid to declare an illegal source of cash income to the taxman.Dilbert_X wrote:
Actually they are criminals, maybe harmless but stil criminals. I doubt they pay tax either.I get most of my weed from harmless hippies.
Here pretty well all mj cultivation and dealing is controlled by the bikies, so recreational users are funding the criminal gangs
I don't know what a "bikie" is. It sounds like an abbreviation for a biscuit. Also, I bet that isn't the case. I've found laid back hippies growing their own weed and selling it in a number of countries (France, Germany, Italy, Canada) and I bet it's the same over there.
It's very, very simple. Prohibition doesn't work. This has been seen time and time again throughout history. There are dozens of pertinent examples. All the precedents tell us that with legalisation and regulation the criminal element is removed from that area, if not entirely, then mostly.Dilbert_X wrote:
Please explain how the single issue of increasing the number of people smoking dope would be a net benefit to society.Why should that be an issue? That's an issue of personal responsibility, society at large should benefit.
A small but significant number will be tipped over the edge into schizophrenia and society picks up the tab. Increasing that number would not be a good thing. Creating an underclass of brainfucked ferals is not a good thing either.
And I doubt criminals would be taken out, they would just undercut the govt slightly and continue as before. Instead of being a crime issue it would become a tax issue, so even slacker control than before.
You talk about society picking up the tab for treating the slight increase in the number of people with mental health issues, but obviously that's completely redunadant since the increased tax revenue would more than cover that cost. I would expect the tax revenue increases in the UK to be somewhere in the region of £5-20 billion per year, possibly much, much more. Since the NHS spending on mental health is in the region of £6-7 billion per year, this increased revenue should EASILY cover the increased costs and additionally generate a good chunk of income for the government.
There are loads of reasons why it could work really well (thereby having a net beneficial effect on society), but it is certainly likely to increase the number of people using drugs (which is a personal decision and simply comes down to taking responsibility for ones own actions, instead of being shepherded through life by a nanny state).
So they're criminals, society has determined they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, they choose to do it - they cop the punishment.Bertster wrote:
Ohhh! They're criminals! So what?
People don't get to pick and choose which laws don't suit them.
There are many laws I don't like, I still abide by them.
I didn't say legalisation wouldn't work, I said please explain the single issue of how increasing the number of drug users would be a good thing - forgetting about the money and looking at the social cost.
Bikies = Biker gangs.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 06:47:18)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
This I can completely agree with (except one little thing).Dilbert_X wrote:
The current situation is drugs are illegal.Pubic wrote:
Those problems are a consequence of the illegality of said drugs - which in the context of this discussion means marijuana.
The consequence of Americans buying drugs - pot, cocaine, heroin - is that money flows to the Mexican drug gangs as one example - which they use to fund their mayhem in Mexico.
The consequence of Europeans buying drugs is money flows to various gangsters and the Taliban.
The consequences of Australians buying drugs is money flows to the bikies and various unsavoury groups across Asia.
You can argue legalisation would remove the above problem, but you can't say the average recreational user currently does so responsibly and without consequence.
(Obviously if you happen to know exactly where your drugs come from and know for sure its not from real gangsters then the above doesn't apply - but generally speaking thats not the case. Uniformly not in the case of drugs harder than pot.)
It is certainly true that the average drug user does not source their drugs in a responsible way. My point on that, is that it is possible to do so - not that it is typical.
I disagree that it is uniformly the case that you cannot source harder drugs without there being gang involvement at some level or stage. With things like coke and opiates I would agree, but again, I know a few crazy hippies with chemistry degrees who are quite happy to knock up chemicals.
One thing that hasn't been touched on is how absurd the legal status of a lot of these things is when you look at the big picture and how unencompassing the misuse of drugs act is. MDMA is illegal, you change MDMA in a tiny way and you'll have a VERY similar compound with VERY similar effects - but one that isn't illegal. In this day and age where people can custom design molecules fairly easily current drug laws are not practically workable. These sorts of things are readily available online and since they are new molecules no one has any real clue what potential side effects could be.
OK, its possible, but improbable - I suspect your friendly hippie guy might get a knock on the door from the local scumbag asking how hes dealing on said scumbags 'turf'. If lucky he might get to hand over the bulk of his profit, or have his legs broken.Bertster wrote:
It is certainly true that the average drug user does not source their drugs in a responsible way. My point on that, is that it is possible to do so - not that it is typical.
Here its legal to grow your own, but most people can't be bothered with the hassle and just buy it from the bikies.
OKI disagree that it is uniformly the case that you cannot source harder drugs without there being gang involvement at some level or stage. With things like coke and opiates I would agree, but again, I know a few crazy hippies with chemistry degrees who are quite happy to knock up chemicals.
Coke - 100% impossible
Opiates - 100% impossible
Synthetics - Possible but improbable, lets say 99% impossible. I for one don't know any crazy hippies.
Its hard to write laws to control every possible synthetic molecule.
That people are prepared to be the lab rat themselves suggests they aren't very responsible.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 07:03:13)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Increasing the number of drug users in itself would obviously not be a good thing. I have been quite clear about that throughout, so why you would ask me about that specific single point when I've already made it quite clear that would be a negative aspect of legalisation?Dilbert_X wrote:
So they're criminals, society has determined they shouldn't be doing what they are doing, they choose to do it - they cop the punishment.Bertster wrote:
Ohhh! They're criminals! So what?
People don't get to pick and choose which laws don't suit them.
There are many laws I don't like, I still abide by them.
I didn't say legalisation wouldn't work, I said please explain the single issue of how increasing the number of drug users would be a good thing - forgetting about the money and looking at the social cost.
Bikies = Biker gangs.
That is the negative side, but the positives outweigh that.Bertster7 wrote:
Decriminalising drugs would have two major effects. One negative, one positive. The first would be to (even if the government line were explicitly contradictory to this) create a degree of social acceptability and impression that such drugs are less harmful. The second would be to eliminate the black market for drugs and slash drug related crime to a fraction of its present levels. I believe that the potential benefits outweigh the potential disadvantages. The fact is that society at large is likely to benefit, yet you may find that more people end up addicted to drugs and so it would really come down to a greater level of personal responsibility.
The mental health cost would be easily covered - the sufferers themselves would've made the decision to take drugs, if that has negative consequences for them then that is purely an issue of personal responsibility. The black market in drugs would be eliminated. Availability to minors would be reduced. Drug related crime would probably fall in line with reduced gang involvement. Funding of unpleasantness abroad would be diminished.
And bear in mind that anyone stupid enough to have their lives completely taken over by drugs and become dependent on them isn't particularly likely to have been a productive member of society anyway. The loss of useful members of the workforce would be minimal.
Fuck you can tell who smokes and who don't. The smokers stopped arguing about this a few days ago and are like 'wtf maaaaaaan'.
So why not just eradicate it entirely?Bertster wrote:
Increasing the number of drug users in itself would obviously not be a good thing.
No more users, no more criminals, problem gone.
You can spot the smokers, they are the ones who can't construct sentences.1927 wrote:
Fuck you can tell who smokes and who don't. The smokers stopped arguing about this a few days ago and are like 'wtf maaaaaaan'.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 07:12:03)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Here's a question I would like to have answered without any lowingisms: In your opinion, can I construct sentences?Dilbert_X wrote:
You can spot the smokers, they are the ones who can't construct sentences.
Aye. The smokers went "Screw this, I'll rather smoke a bowl after work instead of wasting my time with this argument." So they did.1927 wrote:
Fuck you can tell who smokes and who don't. The smokers stopped arguing about this a few days ago and are like 'wtf maaaaaaan'.
I need around tree fiddy.
Or not. That's not how things work.Dilbert_X wrote:
OK, its possible, but improbable - I suspect your friendly hippie guy might get a knock on the door from the local scumbag asking how hes dealing on said scumbags 'turf'. If lucky he might get to hand over the bulk of his profit, or have his legs broken.Bertster wrote:
It is certainly true that the average drug user does not source their drugs in a responsible way. My point on that, is that it is possible to do so - not that it is typical.
Here its legal to grow your own, but most people can't be bothered with the hassle and just buy it from the bikies.
I know 3 people currently growing their own to sell. All have been doing it at least 5 years, one of them has been doing it for nearly 40 years.
The whole notion of getting your legs broken for selling weed is absurd - except in some, easily avoidable, circumstances.
I do also know a few people with drug based gang connections. I try not to associate with them much. The guy I used to buy my weed off when I was about 15 is one. They don't care about a bit of competition. There's a big enough market for everyone. If you don't encroach on them, causing them to lose money, then the kind of risks you are refering to simply don't exist.
Maybe you don't know any crazy hippies. But a lot of ravers who want these sorts of party drug synthetics do.Dilbert_X wrote:
OKI disagree that it is uniformly the case that you cannot source harder drugs without there being gang involvement at some level or stage. With things like coke and opiates I would agree, but again, I know a few crazy hippies with chemistry degrees who are quite happy to knock up chemicals.
Coke - 100% impossible
Opiates - 100% impossible
Synthetics - Possible but improbable, lets say 99% impossible. I for one don't know any crazy hippies.
Its hard to write laws to control every possible synthetic molecule.
That people are prepared to be the lab rat themselves suggests they aren't very responsible.
Your statements are still too sweeping. It's not very hard to grow opium poppies. I doubt anyone would even notice. They're pretty flowers.
Here's a question I would like to have answered without any lowingisms: In your opinion, can I construct sentences?
VV
Aye. The smokers went "Screw this, I'll rather smoke a bowl after work instead of wasting my time with this argument."
No you can't.
VV
Aye. The smokers went "Screw this, I'll rather smoke a bowl after work instead of wasting my time with this argument."
No you can't.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
it seems Dilbert_X speaks from opinion, and Bertster7 speaks from experience.
Its probably not hard, but in practise it doesn't happen, hence if you buy opiates chances are somewhere along the line you're funding scumbags.Your statements are still too sweeping. It's not very hard to grow opium poppies. I doubt anyone would even notice. They're pretty flowers.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You mean besides the fact that would be impossible?Dilbert_X wrote:
So why not just eradicate it entirely?Bertster wrote:
Increasing the number of drug users in itself would obviously not be a good thing.
No more users, no more criminals, problem gone.
Who can't construct sentences?Dilbert_X wrote:
You can spot the smokers, they are the ones who can't construct sentences.1927 wrote:
Fuck you can tell who smokes and who don't. The smokers stopped arguing about this a few days ago and are like 'wtf maaaaaaan'.
Dilbert_X wrote:
Here's a question I would like to have answered without any lowingisms: In your opinion, can I construct sentences?
VV
Aye. The smokers went "Screw this, I'll rather smoke a bowl after work instead of wasting my time with this argument."
No you can't.
No, you can't.Dilbert_X wrote:
No more users, no more criminals, problem gone.
It certainly does seem that way.Swan wrote:
it seems Dilbert_X speaks from opinion.
I need around tree fiddy.
Well now this is getting silly.
'The smokers went' They might have said something, they didn't go anywhere.
'Screw this, I'll rather smoke a bowl' Possibly 'I'd rather smoke a bowl'.
'Fuck you can tell who smokes and who don't.' Doesn't? Fuck doesn't really fit either.
'and are like 'wtf maaaaaaan'.'
Derailed by a mod - like awesome man.
'The smokers went' They might have said something, they didn't go anywhere.
'Screw this, I'll rather smoke a bowl' Possibly 'I'd rather smoke a bowl'.
'Fuck you can tell who smokes and who don't.' Doesn't? Fuck doesn't really fit either.
'and are like 'wtf maaaaaaan'.'
Derailed by a mod - like awesome man.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
In practice (it's a noun there, so spelt with a c - who was it who can't construct sentences again ) it very rarely happens. But it's not 100% impossible.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its probably not hard, but in practise it doesn't happen, hence if you buy opiates chances are somewhere along the line you're funding scumbags.Your statements are still too sweeping. It's not very hard to grow opium poppies. I doubt anyone would even notice. They're pretty flowers.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-10 07:30:00)
I speak from the experiences of seeing multiple people destroy their lives through pot, and having a drug dealer shot dead in my street (good work).swan wrote:
it seems Dilbert_X speaks from opinion
PS Spelling and grammar are two different subjects.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-10 07:31:47)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!