Marijuana is harmful

2009-07-09 03:50:04

#126

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6701|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So people are talking about "responsibly" breaking the law intentionally?

Is that not a contradiction in terms?
No.

Yes. It is.

One cannot "responsibly" knowingly violate the law simply because they want to. That--in and of itself--is an irresponsible act.

“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

2009-07-09 04:05:34

#127

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6871|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So people are talking about "responsibly" breaking the law intentionally?

Is that not a contradiction in terms?
No.
Yes. It is.

One cannot "responsibly" knowingly violate the law simply because they want to. That--in and of itself--is an irresponsible act.

Yes you can. Violating a law is not in itself irresponsible. It's only irresponsible if it were to be the cause of something bad, or if reasonable care were not taken to avoid any problems arising as a result of it.

In this context it's perfectly valid. Which is why there is even an entire Wiki page entitled "Responsible Drug Use". That describes these as the tenets of responsible drug use:

situational responsibilities, health responsibilities, and safety-related responsibilities. Among situational responsibilities they included concerns over the possible situations in which drugs might be used legally. This includes the avoidance of hazardous situations, not using when alone, nor using due to coercion or when the use of drugs itself is the sole reason for use. Health responsibilities include avoidance of excessive doses or hazardous combinations of drugs, awareness of possible health consequences of drug use, and not using a drug recreationally during periods of excessive stress. Safety-related responsibilities include using the smallest dose necessary to achieve the desired effects, using only in relaxed settings with supportive companions, avoiding the use of drugs by injection, and not using drugs while performing complex tasks or those where the drug might impair one's ability to function safely.

2009-07-09 04:25:03

#128

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6701|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

No.
Yes. It is.

One cannot "responsibly" knowingly violate the law simply because they want to. That--in and of itself--is an irresponsible act.
Yes you can. Violating a law is not in itself irresponsible. It's only irresponsible if it were to be the cause of something bad, or if reasonable care were not taken to avoid any problems arising as a result of it.

In this context it's perfectly valid. Which is why there is even an entire Wiki page entitled "Responsible Drug Use". That describes these as the tenets of responsible drug use:

situational responsibilities, health responsibilities, and safety-related responsibilities. Among situational responsibilities they included concerns over the possible situations in which drugs might be used legally. This includes the avoidance of hazardous situations, not using when alone, nor using due to coercion or when the use of drugs itself is the sole reason for use. Health responsibilities include avoidance of excessive doses or hazardous combinations of drugs, awareness of possible health consequences of drug use, and not using a drug recreationally during periods of excessive stress. Safety-related responsibilities include using the smallest dose necessary to achieve the desired effects, using only in relaxed settings with supportive companions, avoiding the use of drugs by injection, and not using drugs while performing complex tasks or those where the drug might impair one's ability to function safely.

I don't care how many wiki articles you find, you won't find anything that will say "it's considered responsible behavior to knowingly violate a law simply because you don't agree with it or it is inconvenient to your recreational activities."

Whether you agree with the illegality of something for recreational use is irrelevant. Breaking the law that makes that thing illegal--intentionally breaking it for no reason other than recreation--is irresponsible. You can't make it otherwise.

“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

2009-07-09 04:32:18

#129

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6871|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:

Yes. It is.

One cannot "responsibly" knowingly violate the law simply because they want to. That--in and of itself--is an irresponsible act.
Yes you can. Violating a law is not in itself irresponsible. It's only irresponsible if it were to be the cause of something bad, or if reasonable care were not taken to avoid any problems arising as a result of it.

In this context it's perfectly valid. Which is why there is even an entire Wiki page entitled "Responsible Drug Use". That describes these as the tenets of responsible drug use:

situational responsibilities, health responsibilities, and safety-related responsibilities. Among situational responsibilities they included concerns over the possible situations in which drugs might be used legally. This includes the avoidance of hazardous situations, not using when alone, nor using due to coercion or when the use of drugs itself is the sole reason for use. Health responsibilities include avoidance of excessive doses or hazardous combinations of drugs, awareness of possible health consequences of drug use, and not using a drug recreationally during periods of excessive stress. Safety-related responsibilities include using the smallest dose necessary to achieve the desired effects, using only in relaxed settings with supportive companions, avoiding the use of drugs by injection, and not using drugs while performing complex tasks or those where the drug might impair one's ability to function safely.
I don't care how many wiki articles you find, you won't find anything that will say "it's considered responsible behavior to knowingly violate a law simply because you don't agree with it or it is inconvenient to your recreational activities."

Whether you agree with the illegality of something for recreational use is irrelevant. Breaking the law that makes that thing illegal--intentionally breaking it for no reason other than recreation--is irresponsible. You can't make it otherwise.

Why?

There is nothing inherently irresponsible in breaking a law. Illegal, but responsible, drug use is quite a wide topic of discussion amongst a number of academics. They know more about it than you. You might think it's irresponsible, but your opinion doesn't make it so. They are experts and their opinion counts for a lot more than either of ours.

2009-07-09 04:36:22

#130

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7006

Lots of successful people smoked weed before. Look at the past few commander in chiefs.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2009-07-09 04:53:59

#131

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6812|...

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Yes. It is.

One cannot "responsibly" knowingly violate the law simply because they want to. That--in and of itself--is an irresponsible act.
Yes you can. Violating a law is not in itself irresponsible. It's only irresponsible if it were to be the cause of something bad, or if reasonable care were not taken to avoid any problems arising as a result of it.

In this context it's perfectly valid. Which is why there is even an entire Wiki page entitled "Responsible Drug Use". That describes these as the tenets of responsible drug use:

situational responsibilities, health responsibilities, and safety-related responsibilities. Among situational responsibilities they included concerns over the possible situations in which drugs might be used legally. This includes the avoidance of hazardous situations, not using when alone, nor using due to coercion or when the use of drugs itself is the sole reason for use. Health responsibilities include avoidance of excessive doses or hazardous combinations of drugs, awareness of possible health consequences of drug use, and not using a drug recreationally during periods of excessive stress. Safety-related responsibilities include using the smallest dose necessary to achieve the desired effects, using only in relaxed settings with supportive companions, avoiding the use of drugs by injection, and not using drugs while performing complex tasks or those where the drug might impair one's ability to function safely.
I don't care how many wiki articles you find, you won't find anything that will say "it's considered responsible behavior to knowingly violate a law simply because you don't agree with it or it is inconvenient to your recreational activities."

Whether you agree with the illegality of something for recreational use is irrelevant. Breaking the law that makes that thing illegal--intentionally breaking it for no reason other than recreation--is irresponsible. You can't make it otherwise.

at one point not wearing your yellow armband was against the law. Point? The law is not absolute or a moral compass.

Last edited by jsnipy (2009-07-09 04:54:39)

2009-07-09 05:26:10

#132

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6701|'Murka

And I never said it was. Keep the issue in perspective.

The mj law is not violating the civil rights of entire races of people.

“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

2009-07-09 05:28:27

#133

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6701|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
There is nothing inherently irresponsible in breaking a law. Illegal, but responsible, drug use is quite a wide topic of discussion amongst a number of academics. They know more about it than you. You might think it's irresponsible, but your opinion doesn't make it so. They are experts and their opinion counts for a lot more than either of ours.

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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.

“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

2009-07-09 05:33:00

#134

M.O.A.B: 'Light 'em up!'; +1,220|6513|Escea

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
There is nothing inherently irresponsible in breaking a law. Illegal, but responsible, drug use is quite a wide topic of discussion amongst a number of academics. They know more about it than you. You might think it's irresponsible, but your opinion doesn't make it so. They are experts and their opinion counts for a lot more than either of ours.
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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.

I was wondering about that opinion part. Everyone's opinion is on level ground regardless of who they are.

2009-07-09 05:37:16

#135

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6871|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
There is nothing inherently irresponsible in breaking a law. Illegal, but responsible, drug use is quite a wide topic of discussion amongst a number of academics. They know more about it than you. You might think it's irresponsible, but your opinion doesn't make it so. They are experts and their opinion counts for a lot more than either of ours.
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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.

So expert opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, riiight......

FEOS wrote:
The mj law is not violating the civil rights of entire races of people.

It could easily be argued that it's violating personal freedoms.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-09 05:38:41)

2009-07-09 05:46:35

#136

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6701|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
There is nothing inherently irresponsible in breaking a law. Illegal, but responsible, drug use is quite a wide topic of discussion amongst a number of academics. They know more about it than you. You might think it's irresponsible, but your opinion doesn't make it so. They are experts and their opinion counts for a lot more than either of ours.
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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.
So expert opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, riiight......

It only seems to make a difference here if it is in line with one's own opinion...otherwise, it's called hogwash.

I, for one, do not buy into the "academics are the experts" when it comes to an issue. They have an opinion. Their chosen line of work (academia) does not make their opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's.

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The mj law is not violating the civil rights of entire races of people.
It could easily be argued that it's violating personal freedoms.

How so? No more than any other law that puts boundaries on one's actions. The willful violation of those laws simply for personal pleasure/convenience is irresponsible behavior, as well.

If MJ were legal, you could talk about "responsible personal use" all day long and it wouldn't be an issue. So long as it is illegal, there is no such thing as "responsible personal use" as that very use is based on an irresponsible act--willfully violating a law for the sake of pleasure/convenience.

“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

2009-07-09 05:47:55

#137

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

nukchebiO wrote:
You said that Keith Richards didn't commit any crimes to get his fix. I pointed out that was wrong. That was my point. It wasn't intended for anything more than that.

He didn't burgle a house, mug anyone - that was the point.

Bertster wrote:
It could easily be argued that it's violating personal freedoms.

Thats what laws do, limit 'personal freedom' for the good of society.

Fuck Israel

2009-07-09 05:52:43

#138

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6871|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.
So expert opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, riiight......
It only seems to make a difference here if it is in line with one's own opinion...otherwise, it's called hogwash.

I, for one, do not buy into the "academics are the experts" when it comes to an issue. They have an opinion. Their chosen line of work (academia) does not make their opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's.

Maybe you don't consider expert opinion to be more valid than your own. But I most certainly do.

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The mj law is not violating the civil rights of entire races of people.
It could easily be argued that it's violating personal freedoms.
How so? No more than any other law that puts boundaries on one's actions. The willful violation of those laws simply for personal pleasure/convenience is irresponsible behavior, as well.

If MJ were legal, you could talk about "responsible personal use" all day long and it wouldn't be an issue. So long as it is illegal, there is no such thing as "responsible personal use" as that very use is based on an irresponsible act--willfully violating a law for the sake of pleasure/convenience.

There is no inherent link between legality and responsibility. Why should there be? What is your reasoning behind there being any sort of link?

How is violating a law for recreational purposes irresponsible if there are no further consequences and it is simply a case of violating the law?

Bearing in mind illegal != irresponsible, what is the rationale behind your argument?

2009-07-09 05:58:28

#139

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6701|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.
So expert opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, riiight......
It only seems to make a difference here if it is in line with one's own opinion...otherwise, it's called hogwash.

I, for one, do not buy into the "academics are the experts" when it comes to an issue. They have an opinion. Their chosen line of work (academia) does not make their opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's.
Maybe you don't consider expert opinion to be more valid than your own. But I most certainly do.

Apparently you missed the nuance of what I said. I would lump you in with that group, as well.

I don't consider academics to be "experts" simply because they're academics.

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

It could easily be argued that it's violating personal freedoms.
How so? No more than any other law that puts boundaries on one's actions. The willful violation of those laws simply for personal pleasure/convenience is irresponsible behavior, as well.

If MJ were legal, you could talk about "responsible personal use" all day long and it wouldn't be an issue. So long as it is illegal, there is no such thing as "responsible personal use" as that very use is based on an irresponsible act--willfully violating a law for the sake of pleasure/convenience.
There is no inherent link between legality and responsibility. Why should there be? What is your reasoning behind there being any sort of link?

How is violating a law for recreational purposes irresponsible if there are no further consequences and it is simply a case of violating the law?

Bearing in mind illegal != irresponsible, what is the rationale behind your argument?

I'm not saying legal = responsible.

I'm saying choosing to perform an illegal act for no reason other than personal pleasure/convenience is irresponsible.

“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

2009-07-09 06:05:47

#140

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

How is violating a law for recreational purposes irresponsible if there are no further consequences and it is simply a case of violating the law?

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.

Fuck Israel

2009-07-09 06:15:34

#141

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6871|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
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.

And the academecians' opinion doesn't make it so either. Why would you assume that they know more about it than anyone else...particularly me? That's a fairly baseless assumption on your part. Their opinion counts for no more than anyone else's.
So expert opinion is worth no more than anyone elses, riiight......
It only seems to make a difference here if it is in line with one's own opinion...otherwise, it's called hogwash.

I, for one, do not buy into the "academics are the experts" when it comes to an issue. They have an opinion. Their chosen line of work (academia) does not make their opinion any more or less valid than anyone else's.
Maybe you don't consider expert opinion to be more valid than your own. But I most certainly do.
Apparently you missed the nuance of what I said. I would lump you in with that group, as well.

I don't consider academics to be "experts" simply because they're academics.

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.

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:

How so? No more than any other law that puts boundaries on one's actions. The willful violation of those laws simply for personal pleasure/convenience is irresponsible behavior, as well.

If MJ were legal, you could talk about "responsible personal use" all day long and it wouldn't be an issue. So long as it is illegal, there is no such thing as "responsible personal use" as that very use is based on an irresponsible act--willfully violating a law for the sake of pleasure/convenience.
There is no inherent link between legality and responsibility. Why should there be? What is your reasoning behind there being any sort of link?

How is violating a law for recreational purposes irresponsible if there are no further consequences and it is simply a case of violating the law?

Bearing in mind illegal != irresponsible, what is the rationale behind your argument?
I'm not saying legal = responsible.

I'm saying choosing to perform an illegal act for no reason other than personal pleasure/convenience is irresponsible.

Why? If there are no consequences, how is it irresponsible?

Dilbert_X wrote:
And there are always consequences, the 'recreational user' is funding the mayhem going on in Mexico and Afghanistan for example.

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.

2009-07-09 07:06:48

#142

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6939

Dilbert_X wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
It's true, living in Amsterdam I can say that it's much harder for underage kids (<18) to get pot, because unless your hair is going grey you pretty much get asked for ID the second you walk in.
Sounds good to me.

So then you'd agree that legalisation would help prevent use by the people that are most at risk using it, and it would hence be a good idea?

2009-07-09 07:46:08

#143

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

ghettoperson wrote:
So then you'd agree that legalisation would help prevent use by the people that are most at risk using it, and it would hence be a good idea?

I don't care what happens as long as usage is cut and the criminals are taken out of the deal.
If legalisation increases the number of people using then no.
I'd be equally happy with a mandatory life term for dealing.

Bertster 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.

I was referring to drugs besides 'weed' also, pretty sure cocaine and heroin aren't produced domestically, so its not 'bullshit'.
In those cases 'responsible recreational users' are funding extensive mayhem.
As for marijuana, gang fights, turf wars etc are being funded by 'responsible users'.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-09 07:46:48)

Fuck Israel

2009-07-09 07:49:55

#144

Peter: Super Awesome Member; +494|6692|dm_maidenhead

I got so baked last night

2009-07-09 08:09:50

#145

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6871|SE London

Dilbert_X wrote:
I was referring to drugs besides 'weed' also, pretty sure cocaine and heroin aren't produced domestically, so its not 'bullshit'.
In those cases 'responsible recreational users' are funding extensive mayhem.
As for marijuana, gang fights, turf wars etc are being funded by 'responsible users'.

You said "there are always consequences". The key word there being "always". I am going about demonstrating that not to be the case. All I have to do to prove you wrong is prove a single instance, whereas you have to prove it universally.

A lot of weed is grown by harmless hippies, no gang ties, no turf wars. I get most of my weed from harmless hippies. People who know nothing about such matters always assume that all drug dealing is done by gangs and dangerous criminals, which is simply not the case.

Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't care what happens as long as usage is cut and the criminals are taken out of the deal.
If legalisation increases the number of people using then no.
I'd be equally happy with a mandatory life term for dealing.

It would take criminals out of the equation, obviously. It would cut availability to kids, obviously. It would make a lot of money for the government, obviously. It would probably increase overall usage.

Why should that be an issue? That's an issue of personal responsibility, society at large should benefit.

2009-07-09 19:15:03

#146

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

I get most of my weed from harmless hippies.

Actually they are criminals, maybe harmless but stil criminals. I doubt they pay tax either.
Here pretty well all mj cultivation and dealing is controlled by the bikies, so recreational users are funding the criminal gangs

Why should that be an issue? That's an issue of personal responsibility, society at large should benefit.

Please explain how the single issue of increasing the number of people smoking dope would be a net benefit to society.
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.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-07-09 19:18:17)

Fuck Israel

2009-07-09 19:40:28

#147

jsnipy: ...; +3,277|6812|...

Peter wrote:
I got so baked last night

2009-07-10 01:26:54

#148

BVC: Member; +325|6985

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.

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.

Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats what laws do, limit 'personal freedom' for the good of society.

If current democracies were free of bribery and political party donations, then that might be the case.

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.

Citing problems caused by marijuana's illegal status as justification for the continuation of that illegal status is absurd, nonsensical, and completely irrational.

Last edited by Pubic (2009-07-10 01:40:01)

2009-07-10 02:37:38

#149

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6939

Dilbert_X wrote:
I get most of my weed from harmless hippies.
Actually they are criminals, maybe harmless but stil criminals. I doubt they pay tax either.
Here pretty well all mj cultivation and dealing is controlled by the bikies, so recreational users are funding the criminal gangs

Slightly off topic, but I was reading a book about bikies and their meth labs a few weeks ago. Interesting stuff.

2009-07-10 03:02:46

#150

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,817|6396|eXtreme to the maX

Anyone growing dope here can expect a knock on the door and to have their crop taken away at gunpoint.

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums Marijuana is harmful

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

nukchebiO wrote:

Bertster wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Bertster wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Peter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer