Hempfest 09'

[LGK 10+ year member]

sooooo back to the orignal question @ hand.... anyone else plan on going to hempfest?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Sometimes a troll, indeed. Point was and still is that smoking pot, medicinal or not is illegal at the federal level even if Obama doesn't enforce it. Not saying I agree with federal trumping state law, but it is what it is, just the truth of the current situation.
You didn't answer my question either, do you have personal experience or know people like I mentioned in my last post? I do, but I guess real life personal experience is obviously made up because you have read some studies. My perception was not created by the media, it was created by what I've seen in real life with my own eyes. If you haven't personally seen people like this then you just don't know...no troll. Maybe you need to think for yourself...

You obviously missed where I did indeed address your example. I will again.
Yes Ive known people who scrape bowls or call in every favor they can when they are out of pot. So what? You think that proves pot should not be legal somehow? How, exactly? Ive addressed the addictive nature of the substance, that your example eludes to. So if you have a specific point to make beyond this, Im listening. But dont pretend Im avoiding.

And the 'it is what it is' reasoning makes no sense. Again this whole debate erupted over the idea of legalizing marijuana. You coming in to explain that pot smokers are law breakers serves no purpose to a debate on legalization other than to try and cast the smokers in an artificially negative light. It seems so simple that I shouldn't even have to say this, but I guess I do... if the substance was legalized as this debate implies, your argument of 'lawbreaker!' would no longer hold ANY value what so ever.

I hope this reply was short enough for your approval.

 

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

1 In the abeginning bGod ccreated the dheaven and the eearth.

2 And the earth was without aform, and void; and bdarkness was upon the face of the deep. And the cSpirit of God dmoved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God asaid, Let there be blight: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was agood: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light aDay, and the bdarkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the cfirst dday.

6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a afirmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the awaters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament aHeaven. And the evening and the morning were the second bday.

9 ¶ And God said, Let the awaters under the heaven be gathered together unto bone place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land aEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth agrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth abrought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his bkind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

1 In the abeginning bGod ccreated the dheaven and the eearth. 2 And the earth was without aform, and void; and bdarkness was upon the face of the deep. And the cSpirit of God dmoved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God asaid, Let there be blight: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was agood: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5 And God called the light aDay, and the bdarkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the cfirst dday.

6 ¶ And God said, Let there be a afirmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the awaters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament aHeaven. And the evening and the morning were the second bday.

9 ¶ And God said, Let the awaters under the heaven be gathered together unto bone place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10 And God called the dry land aEarth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth agrass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12 And the earth abrought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his bkind: and God saw that it was good.

13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

God had alot of typos.

 

[LGK 10+ year member]

lmao

audioholic > all you haters.

 

[subzero 5,000+ posts]

God had alot of typos.

his secretary did, FYI.

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

his secretary did, FYI.

I bet she was stoned.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

You obviously missed where I did indeed address your example. I will again.
Yes Ive known people who scrape bowls or call in every favor they can when they are out of pot. So what? You think that proves pot should not be legal somehow? How, exactly? Ive addressed the addictive nature of the substance, that your example eludes to. So if you have a specific point to make beyond this, Im listening. But dont pretend Im avoiding.

And the 'it is what it is' reasoning makes no sense. Again this whole debate erupted over the idea of legalizing marijuana. You coming in to explain that pot smokers are law breakers serves no purpose to a debate on legalization other than to try and cast the smokers in an artificially negative light. It seems so simple that I shouldn't even have to say this, but I guess I do... if the substance was legalized as this debate implies, your argument of 'lawbreaker!' would no longer hold ANY value what so ever.

I hope this reply was short enough for your approval.

Length of post approved //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif

I am not negatively judging pot smokers on legality, even if it was legal I would still think people who smoke weed all day every day are dirty hippies....just like anybody that drank alcohol all day everyday would be a dirty alcoholic.

I did say that all use of MJ is still illegal on the books at the federal level even if not enforced, is that incorrect?

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Length of post approved //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/thumbsup.gif.3287b36ca96645a13a43aff531f37f02.gif
I am not negatively judging pot smokers on legality, even if it was legal I would still think people who smoke weed all day every day are dirty hippies....just like anybody that drank alcohol all day everyday would be a dirty alcoholic.

I did say that all use of MJ is still illegal on the books at the federal level even if not enforced, is that incorrect?

Awesome.
I believe the smoker's have already sufficiently made a case that explains the difference between use and abuse, and have been very clear that it is abuse, not use, that should be controlled. Use is fine. Use while driving, for example, is not fine. Just like alcohol. I dont see you making a case, currently, that varies from the 'dirty hippies' stance. Nobody here is arguing abuse should be tolerated.

You are correct.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Awesome.
I believe the smoker's have already sufficiently made a case that explains the difference between use and abuse, and have been very clear that it is abuse, not use, that should be controlled. Use is fine. Use while driving, for example, is not fine. Just like alcohol. I dont see you making a case, currently, that varies from the 'dirty hippies' stance. Nobody here is arguing abuse should be tolerated.

You are correct.

Indeed. When people abuse the drug and it affects others (such as driving) it is the laws job. When people abuse the drug only to the detriment of themselves the law doesn't judge but I still do in my general narcissistic ways...

 

[Pyro_By_Nature 5,000+ posts]

No whats pathetic is when two stupid ****ing high school students get high as **** and go into on coming traffic and hit head on with my grandma. My best friend since i was in 4th grade started smoking in 9th grade and now is a junkie low life piece of shit and does shrooms and shit now. Now you tell me that i have no reason to hate the stuff, and dont tell me i have no idea what i am talking about, i used to smoke and now i am 19 years old and busting my *** trying to graduate from high school because i slacked the last three years, i had a gpa of under 1.0 because i could think about was going and getting high, i would come to school high, i would smoke in the bathrooms between periods. i started losing friends and i was a **** up. I stopped smoking weed and im getting on track now and im only graduating 8 months late, i had to make up 16 credits in a year all because of weed. People are getting dumber and the weed is becoming more potent, kids dont even sell weed around here now they sell ****ing hash because kids dont even get high off chronic anymore, what happens when the hash dont get em high anymore? They move on to coke maybe? I live in Clairemont, San Diego aka "tweekersville" lots of druggies around here and all of their kids are growing up the same way and their parents all started with weed at one point. So dont sit here and tell me i dont know shit about weed, it runs peoples lives around here, mother ****ers cant pay there water bill but they can pick up on a sack, now why the **** is that?

While I see your point on some people not being able to pay bills but still got a sack, there is no denying there are quite a few out there like that.

But there are also some people who can't do anything but eat and throw up all day, or ******** all day, etc. My point is it is the person, not the drug. Not everyone who smokes becomes a burn-out with a 1.0 gpa.

My best friend since i was in 4th grade started smoking in 9th grade and now is a junkie low life piece of shit and does shrooms and shit now.

If your friend is doing any opiates, coke, crack, amp, etc. that's one thing, but calling someone a junkie over using shrooms? A lot of people treat the shroom with respect and the ones who throughly enjoy mushrooms are mature, older, successful people. But they aren't just chasing the visuals of seeing a face melt or wood flowing like water. They're more about the insight.

Just goes back to my original point. It's the person, not the drug. You should really try and lose the hatred towards weed. You can almost see the vein popping out of your head through your post. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[audioholic 5,000+ posts]

Indeed. When people abuse the drug and it affects others (such as driving) it is the laws job. When people abuse the drug only to the detriment of themselves the law doesn't judge but I still do in my general narcissistic ways...

And in this we finally found some common ground.

 

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

Marijuana is one of the safest, most benign substances known to man. Not to mention one of the top five influential crops in the history of human development. Those who classify or pigeon hole it into a category with illicit drugs are either poorly educated on the matter, or trolls. There have been about 4 documented cases of marijuana leading to fatal car crashes in the last 12 years, vs alcohol, illicit drugs, or cell phone use which number in the tens of thousands. More people die in cars as a result of having *** or brushing their teeth than marijuana usage.