HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Stoner Thread
Posted by: The High Guy ()
Date: January 08, 2012 02:25PM

sont.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: The High Guy ()
Date: January 08, 2012 02:28PM

tumblr_lxgcoptwal1qhtuxho1_500.gif

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 08, 2012 03:28PM

Ha ha! Laugh now, you hipster doofus! This is you in five years when your momma cuts off your allowance and kicks you out of your bedroom.
Attachments:
stoner.jpeg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: U R A FRAUD ()
Date: January 08, 2012 03:35PM

"the high guy" is a fake stoner. kids now a days get high to be cool. we used to get high to get high in my day. we used it as a way to look into ourselves and open new dimensions...they just do it so that they can skip school. fucking shitheads need a role model.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: friskydingo ()
Date: January 08, 2012 03:38PM

obviously The High Guy is fake. FAKE

 

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 08, 2012 04:49PM

In my day we call stoners...

pot heads
bums
worthless
burnouts
creeps
freaks
hippies
trash
a drain on society
dumb asses
a plight
soon-to-be welfare recipients
those guys I saw on COPS last night
an example you use to scare your kids into making something of themselves
the C- crowd at NVCC
the ones who made my Subway sandwich

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: friskydingo ()
Date: January 08, 2012 05:00PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In my day we call stoners...
>
> pot heads
> bums
> worthless
> burnouts
> creeps
> freaks
> hippies
> trash
> a drain on society
> dumb asses
> a plight
> soon-to-be welfare recipients
> those guys I saw on COPS last night
> an example you use to scare your kids into making
> something of themselves
> the C- crowd at NVCC
> the ones who made my Subway sandwich


That's not very nice, c'mon, who hasn't smoked before?

 

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: meth ed ()
Date: January 08, 2012 05:00PM

meth addicts work at starbucks and all of em be stonerz

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: @ U R A FRAUD ()
Date: January 08, 2012 05:27PM

U R A FRAUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "the high guy" is a fake stoner. kids now a days
> get high to be cool. we used to get high to get
> high in my day. we used it as a way to look into
> ourselves and open new dimensions...they just do
> it so that they can skip school. fucking
> shitheads need a role model.


lol so they can skip school? please. kids go to school high all the time. why do they think they call it HIGH SCHOOL!?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: @ @ U R A FRAUD ()
Date: January 08, 2012 05:28PM

the kids nowdays smoke weed so they can go and skip school and go bowling

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: I am just2old ()
Date: January 08, 2012 05:50PM

The High Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>


I smoked in the 80's. The devil's lettuce is cool but now that I am old and havent smoked in decades I am afraid to try it again.
I hear that 420 has become strong and trippy. Is this true?
A kid where I work tried to give me a bud of "Thunderfuck" I told him thanks but no. Maybe I will think about it next time someone tries to give me some.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:00PM

Who hasn't smoked before? Are you serious in posing that question? Are you so entrenched in the sullied, pathetic realm of the American suburban drug culture as to assume it an absolute truth that EVERYONE had used marijuana?

First, let's look at the logic of the question. If we limit ourselves to the US population of just over 300,000,000, we can safely conclude that at least a small population has not used any kind of illegal substance. That's nothing more than basic probability. But, I would venture to guess that the percentage is anything but small. In fact, I am fairly certain that MOST of the US population has not used marijuana despite how it is portrayed by the media and the other lemmings who are so weak of mind and character that they believe that everyone is as impressionable as they happen to be.

How can I be certain? Once again, simple math. Looking again at our 300,000,000 population base, a simple majority takes us over 150,000,000 users - admittedly some fleeting if not entirely singular in episode. Nevertheless, that is a staggering number and would create a massive demand in addition to demand throughout the rest of the world, which based on your assumption would be over 3,000,000,000 assuming a majority of users.

Simply put, known marijuana output could not meet that level of demand. In fact if we look at Canada and its liberal view of cannabis use, estimated use among the general population is about 17%. Even if we double that to assuming that people lie about use even in a liberal environment, we get to 34%. The US comes in at 12.8% and using the same liars logical we're just over 25%. Not even close to supporting the "who hasn't" premise.

My premise is that nasty, myopic drug users become so entrenched in their parochial worlds that they lose touch with reality and begin inventing these little common-use fallacies so as to legitimize what they know to be a social aberration that is anything but accepted. It's kind of like going to Walmart. People who go there think that everyone goes there, but if you look at the Walmart population and compare it the population as a whole, you begin to realize that there are a lot of people who avoid it like the plague because it's a shitty business that keeps China in a position of economic superiority. Of course, going to Walmart doesn't result in gynecomastia!

Bud

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:03PM

Wow, Bud, you really let things get to you. Quit being such a little whiney bitch. Live your life, let others live theirs.

Are you just mad because your first name is a reference to the very drug you so hate?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Ben Roflzburger ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:03PM

SWIM who recruits for a government agency says that if someone tells you that they have never smoked weed, they are probably not telling the truth. This is not always the case but the majority of people have done it atleast once in their life. The cutoff for employment is 15 times.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 08:04PM by Ben Roflzburger.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Funny Guy! ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:07PM

Ben Roflzburger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SWIM who recruits for a government agency says
> that if someone tells you that they have never
> smoked weed, they are probably not telling the
> truth. This is not always the case but the
> majority of people have done it atleast once in
> their life. The cutoff for employment is 15
> times.


HAHA...O.k. Garth

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:08PM

Uber..

Pfft. Hey, First Amendment. Know it, live it. Above all else, tell the truth on here and everywhere and clearly separate fact from opinion.

As for you use of "little whiney bitch," it is self-evident that vulgarity is the effort of a marginal intellect trying to express a thought. Next time you want to insult someone, be articulate. It does a better job to striking the right nerve.

Bud

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: TLDR ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:09PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who hasn't smoked before? Are you serious in
> posing that question? Are you so entrenched in the
> sullied, pathetic realm of the American suburban
> drug culture as to assume it an absolute truth
> that EVERYONE had used marijuana?
>
> First, let's look at the logic of the question. If
> we limit ourselves to the US population of just
> over 300,000,000, we can safely conclude that at
> least a small population has not used any kind of
> illegal substance. That's nothing more than basic
> probability. But, I would venture to guess that
> the percentage is anything but small. In fact, I
> am fairly certain that MOST of the US population
> has not used marijuana despite how it is portrayed
> by the media and the other lemmings who are so
> weak of mind and character that they believe that
> everyone is as impressionable as they happen to
> be.
>
> How can I be certain? Once again, simple math.
> Looking again at our 300,000,000 population base,
> a simple majority takes us over 150,000,000 users
> - admittedly some fleeting if not entirely
> singular in episode. Nevertheless, that is a
> staggering number and would create a massive
> demand in addition to demand throughout the rest
> of the world, which based on your assumption would
> be over 3,000,000,000 assuming a majority of
> users.
>
> Simply put, known marijuana output could not meet
> that level of demand. In fact if we look at Canada
> and its liberal view of cannabis use, estimated
> use among the general population is about 17%.
> Even if we double that to assuming that people lie
> about use even in a liberal environment, we get to
> 34%. The US comes in at 12.8% and using the same
> liars logical we're just over 25%. Not even close
> to supporting the "who hasn't" premise.
>
> My premise is that nasty, myopic drug users become
> so entrenched in their parochial worlds that they
> lose touch with reality and begin inventing these
> little common-use fallacies so as to legitimize
> what they know to be a social aberration that is
> anything but accepted. It's kind of like going to
> Walmart. People who go there think that everyone
> goes there, but if you look at the Walmart
> population and compare it the population as a
> whole, you begin to realize that there are a lot
> of people who avoid it like the plague because
> it's a shitty business that keeps China in a
> position of economic superiority. Of course, going
> to Walmart doesn't result in gynecomastia!
>
> Bud

^

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:10PM

Yes, statistically speaking, more than 50% of Americans will at some point in their life smoke marijuana.

So what? The only reason it's a 'big deal' is because people make a big deal of it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Ben Roflzburger ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:13PM

Funny Guy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> HAHA...O.k. Garth


SWIM says that this is the limit because otherwise a person wouldn't be able to receive certain security clearances. Of course there is also a limit on the time of last use and other factors.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 08:15PM by Ben Roflzburger.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Keystone ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:16PM

Ben Roflzburger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny Guy! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > HAHA...O.k. Garth
>
>
> SWIM says that this is the limit because otherwise
> a person wouldn't be able to receive certain
> security clearances. Of course there is also a
> limit on the time of last use and other factors.


Uh..yeah. That would be key

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:16PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uber..
>
> Pfft. Hey, First Amendment. Know it, live it.
> Above all else, tell the truth on here and
> everywhere and clearly separate fact from
> opinion.
>
> As for you use of "little whiney bitch," it is
> self-evident that vulgarity is the effort of a
> marginal intellect trying to express a thought.
> Next time you want to insult someone, be
> articulate. It does a better job to striking the
> right nerve.
>
> Bud


Oh, I'm sorry - you had an issue with my articulation? Curious that it didn't inhibit your ability to comprehend what I was saying.
My intent was not to insult you. I could care less about doing so - I have more imporant things to concern myself with than your own self-image. You, on the other hand, seem to have put quite the effort into what is really nothing more than a poorly thought out ad hominem attack. Well done.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Tammy ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:18PM

Übermensch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bud Hoal Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Uber..
> >
> > Pfft. Hey, First Amendment. Know it, live it.
> > Above all else, tell the truth on here and
> > everywhere and clearly separate fact from
> > opinion.
> >
> > As for you use of "little whiney bitch," it is
> > self-evident that vulgarity is the effort of a
> > marginal intellect trying to express a thought.
> > Next time you want to insult someone, be
> > articulate. It does a better job to striking
> the
> > right nerve.
> >
> > Bud
>
>
> Oh, I'm sorry - you had an issue with my
> articulation? Curious that it didn't inhibit your
> ability to comprehend what I was saying.
> My intent was not to insult you. I could care less
> about doing so - I have more imporant things to
> concern myself with than your own self-image. You,
> on the other hand, seem to have put quite the
> effort into what is really nothing more than a
> poorly thought out ad hominem attack. Well done.


Whoa!!
"ad hominem"..??
Those some big words big boy!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:19PM

'Ad hominem' is not a 'big word'.

Perhaps had you continued your education, you would not find it so baffling.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: friskydingo ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:20PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who hasn't smoked before? Are you serious in
> posing that question? Are you so entrenched in the
> sullied, pathetic realm of the American suburban
> drug culture as to assume it an absolute truth
> that EVERYONE had used marijuana?
>
> First, let's look at the logic of the question. If
> we limit ourselves to the US population of just
> over 300,000,000, we can safely conclude that at
> least a small population has not used any kind of
> illegal substance. That's nothing more than basic
> probability. But, I would venture to guess that
> the percentage is anything but small. In fact, I
> am fairly certain that MOST of the US population
> has not used marijuana despite how it is portrayed
> by the media and the other lemmings who are so
> weak of mind and character that they believe that
> everyone is as impressionable as they happen to
> be.
>
> How can I be certain? Once again, simple math.
> Looking again at our 300,000,000 population base,
> a simple majority takes us over 150,000,000 users
> - admittedly some fleeting if not entirely
> singular in episode. Nevertheless, that is a
> staggering number and would create a massive
> demand in addition to demand throughout the rest
> of the world, which based on your assumption would
> be over 3,000,000,000 assuming a majority of
> users.
>
> Simply put, known marijuana output could not meet
> that level of demand. In fact if we look at Canada
> and its liberal view of cannabis use, estimated
> use among the general population is about 17%.
> Even if we double that to assuming that people lie
> about use even in a liberal environment, we get to
> 34%. The US comes in at 12.8% and using the same
> liars logical we're just over 25%. Not even close
> to supporting the "who hasn't" premise.
>
> My premise is that nasty, myopic drug users become
> so entrenched in their parochial worlds that they
> lose touch with reality and begin inventing these
> little common-use fallacies so as to legitimize
> what they know to be a social aberration that is
> anything but accepted. It's kind of like going to
> Walmart. People who go there think that everyone
> goes there, but if you look at the Walmart
> population and compare it the population as a
> whole, you begin to realize that there are a lot
> of people who avoid it like the plague because
> it's a shitty business that keeps China in a
> position of economic superiority. Of course, going
> to Walmart doesn't result in gynecomastia!
>
> Bud



Well your kids are probably getting high. Nearly 42% of high schoolers have smoked Marijuana and Im sure that number only climbs in college aged adults.
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs11/12430/index.htm

39.8% of all Americans have reported using Marijuana at least once and society doesn't look like it is collapsing in a drug frenzy.
http://www.marijuanaaddictiontreatment.org/statistics-facts.html

 

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Ben Roflzburger ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:21PM

Tammy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Whoa!!
> "ad hominem"..??
> Those some big words big boy!


I spend my day online typing wiki articles and reading the thesaurus.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:27PM

OK, while I doubt the "more than 50%" premise, let's for the sake of argument, examine what that means about the minority - the non-users. I am of the opinion that these people are more self-confident, a less likely to be manipulated, focus themselves less on self-gratification, are healthier, and general are more successful if all other factors are held as equal. In other words, these are the folks that all the stoners depend on when they get sick, when they need financial counseling, legal assistance, etc. Nobody wants to think for a surgeon, fireman, bus driver or the like being high. Of course, your stoner is never going to amount to that kind of agonizing labor. No, let the other guy do it so I can smoke and go from one party to the next. Leaking pipe? Call a plumber, cuz I plan on getting high later. Car needs tuning? I never learned about changing spark plugs cuz I was too high. Mow the lawn? Ha, that's for suckers who aren't buzzed. Get good grades, join the military, amount to something? Man, that will not sit well with my need for weed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: friskydingo ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:30PM

Bud is a huge proponent of the "nanny state."

 

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:35PM

Uber,

My hat is off to you given your last couple of posts. An exceptional retort!

Of course, I think I was only a tad ad hominem in my claims!

As for reading the thesaurus, Roflz, it's a good resource, don't mock it. If others had access to one, reading posts on here would be much more pleasurable and likely more educational!

Bud

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:36PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, while I doubt the "more than 50%" premise,
> let's for the sake of argument, examine what that
> means about the minority - the non-users. I am of
> the opinion that these people are more
> self-confident, a less likely to be manipulated,
> focus themselves less on self-gratification, are
> healthier, and general are more successful if all
> other factors are held as equal. In other words,
> these are the folks that all the stoners depend on
> when they get sick, when they need financial
> counseling, legal assistance, etc. Nobody wants
> to think for a surgeon, fireman, bus driver or the
> like being high. Of course, your stoner is never
> going to amount to that kind of agonizing labor.
> No, let the other guy do it so I can smoke and go
> from one party to the next. Leaking pipe? Call a
> plumber, cuz I plan on getting high later. Car
> needs tuning? I never learned about changing spark
> plugs cuz I was too high. Mow the lawn? Ha, that's
> for suckers who aren't buzzed. Get good grades,
> join the military, amount to something? Man, that
> will not sit well with my need for weed.

You seem to mistakenly believe that increased consumption of marijuana somehow correlates with likelihood of getting sick. This is not at all the case.
Hell, there's a reason this stuff is also used as medicine (though the prevalency of medical marijuana has less to do with practicality as medicine and more to do with the arbitrary prohibition of recreational usage).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Ben Roflzburger ()
Date: January 08, 2012 08:38PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am of the opinion that these people are more
> self-confident

Barrack Obama has claimed to have previously tried weed. He seems like a fairly self-confident guy.

> Get good grades, join the military, amount to something?

Atleast 60% of military enlisted have previously smoked weed....Mostly because they were smoking weed and getting shitty grades at the local community college and talked to a recruiter that was on the campus



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2012 08:40PM by Ben Roflzburger.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Mister Foar Twenty ()
Date: January 09, 2012 10:33PM

Wowwww.....I forgot what I was going to say.......Shit.....

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Slowstrokin ()
Date: January 10, 2012 11:58AM

Anybody know where I can score some bud? I'm about out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: BUD HOAL IS A COP 9000 proxies A.C.A.B ()
Date: January 10, 2012 02:21PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, while I doubt the "more than 50%" premise,
> let's for the sake of argument, examine what that
> means about the minority - the non-users. I am of
> the opinion that these people are more
> self-confident, a less likely to be manipulated,
> focus themselves less on self-gratification, are
> healthier, and general are more successful if all
> other factors are held as equal. In other words,
> these are the folks that all the stoners depend on
> when they get sick, when they need financial
> counseling, legal assistance, etc. Nobody wants
> to think for a surgeon, fireman, bus driver or the
> like being high. Of course, your stoner is never
> going to amount to that kind of agonizing labor.
> No, let the other guy do it so I can smoke and go
> from one party to the next. Leaking pipe? Call a
> plumber, cuz I plan on getting high later. Car
> needs tuning? I never learned about changing spark
> plugs cuz I was too high. Mow the lawn? Ha, that's
> for suckers who aren't buzzed. Get good grades,
> join the military, amount to something? Man, that
> will not sit well with my need for weed.


Excuse me, officer, but i would like to address some of your generalizations, if i may?
They're all bullshit, and your arrogant style of writing confirms that you are in fact, a brain washed moron/goverment employee. Thank you for your biased, unwanted opinion, and perhaps you should use the next blunt you "Confiscate" to engulf yourself in flames, lamenting the horrors of marijuana as you do so. I am hopeful that a slow, excruciating death such as this would be tantamount to me, and everyone else in the thread having to hear any more retarded, anti-weed propaganda from a low level goverment employee on his 3 hour lunch break.
thanks bud.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: BEH ()
Date: January 10, 2012 03:19PM

Stoners seem pretty harmless..why all the hate?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 10, 2012 07:53PM

Slowstrokin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody know where I can score some bud? I'm about
> out.

Either you are a cop, and can therefore go fuck yourself (sneaky bastard...), or you're just a dumbass, and deserve the charges you end up with after being tricked by an undercover cop. Either way, information on deals doesn't belong on the internet.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 10, 2012 07:55PM

BEH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stoners seem pretty harmless..why all the hate?


Because pot-headedness is contagious, and those stoners are trying to recruit our children!

Oh wait, that's the homosexuals...

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Slowstrokin ()
Date: January 11, 2012 10:33AM

C'mon man....don't blow my cover!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: BB*X ()
Date: January 11, 2012 02:26PM

"Who hasn't smoked before? Are you serious in posing that question? Are you so entrenched in the sullied, pathetic realm of the American suburban drug culture as to assume it an absolute truth that EVERYONE had used marijuana?....."


You must have been a blast to hang out with in college!!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bid Hoal ()
Date: January 11, 2012 10:09PM

OK, all other arguments aside, since all smoke (from wood, paper, tobacco, etc) is toxic, why do you conisider it inconsequential to inhale smoke from marijuana or any other combustible organic matter?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 11, 2012 10:18PM

Bid Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK, all other arguments aside, since all smoke
> (from wood, paper, tobacco, etc) is toxic, why do
> you conisider it inconsequential to inhale smoke
> from marijuana or any other combustible organic
> matter?


All smoke is toxic? Who the fuck told you that?

No, marijuana smoke is not toxic, nor can it cause any sort of cancer.
However, smoke itself is never good for you (even if it provides a delivery system for things that are/can be good for you). Despite this, marijuana smoke is still harmless ENOUGH that it isn't worth concerning yourself with, especially if you are only an occasional smoker.
People that are seriously adverse to any sort of smoking can choose to vaporize or cook (and eat) their weed instead.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 11, 2012 10:20PM

Also, just to clarify (since it's difficult to interpret tone through text): I'm not trying to be an asshole or belittling, if that's how I come across - this is just the way I talk/write informally.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Mr Brownie Baker ()
Date: January 12, 2012 02:33AM

If you've ever cared for somebody dying of cancer, you'd understand the medical benefits.

Last year I lost 2 people who were close to me, both of cancer.

Those of you who universally condemn marijuana as a drug for losers and burnouts are simply misinformed and ignorant.

I've since learned how to infuse butter and canola oil with THC and am looking to become a provider myself.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 12, 2012 02:36AM

So...you live in DC I'm guessing?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Mr Brownie Baker ()
Date: January 12, 2012 09:22AM

Not even close, I live on the other side of the continent, think eskimos and igloos.

The courts have recognized that the privacy clause in the state constitution outweighs the need to regulate the possession of marijuana in ones home.

Thus, marijuana, up to 25 plants and less than 4 ounces is considered legal to possess in ones home. It is a gray area, and the law hasn't been challenged, and until somebody does challenge the law it is...in effect....the law of the land.

You still can't sell it or transport it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Mr Greenjeans ()
Date: January 12, 2012 02:15PM

Jesus, 25 plants with a max limit of 4 ounces? Assuming you plant 25 seeds and 12 of them turn out to be female, you'd have to be the worst gardener to not produce more than 4 ounces.


Mr Brownie Baker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not even close, I live on the other side of the
> continent, think eskimos and igloos.
>
> The courts have recognized that the privacy clause
> in the state constitution outweighs the need to
> regulate the possession of marijuana in ones
> home.
>
> Thus, marijuana, up to 25 plants and less than 4
> ounces is considered legal to possess in ones
> home. It is a gray area, and the law hasn't been
> challenged, and until somebody does challenge the
> law it is...in effect....the law of the land.
>
> You still can't sell it or transport it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 12, 2012 05:18PM

Mr Brownie Baker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not even close, I live on the other side of the
> continent, think eskimos and igloos.
>
> The courts have recognized that the privacy clause
> in the state constitution outweighs the need to
> regulate the possession of marijuana in ones
> home.
>
> Thus, marijuana, up to 25 plants and less than 4
> ounces is considered legal to possess in ones
> home. It is a gray area, and the law hasn't been
> challenged, and until somebody does challenge the
> law it is...in effect....the law of the land.
>
> You still can't sell it or transport it.


Ah, I was assuming you were from the area, and DC is the only place around here with medical.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Mr Brownie Baker ()
Date: January 12, 2012 07:38PM

That's too bad, I feel that access to medicinal marijuana should be expanded, I've witnessed first hand the benefits of marijuana for cancer patients who don't have an appetite, have mood/anxiety disorders and for help with sleep disorders.

MJ affects every person differently, for some smoking isn't an option so ingestion is the preferred method. Butter and Canola oil are two good ways to cook with MJ, there are plenty of informative videos on Youtube to show you how to do it.

Smoking is only one way to ingest, vaporization is a preferred method for those who can afford a vaporizor.

Personally, the older I get the less I care for smoking it, I do enjoy it's benefits from a creative standpoint. I play music for a hobby, and there's nothing better than getting really baked and playing music with a bunch of good friends.

I don't operate motor vehicles under the influence, I don't show up to work stoned nor would I advocate that. Under the right circumstances, given proper accordance and respect, MJ is a wonderful substance that should be legal for ALL adults to grow and possess in the privacy of their own homes.

I know doctors, lawyers, judges and even....yes, cops.....who like to light up, it's not that unusual.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 13, 2012 05:45PM

OK, to reiterate, ALL SMOKE IS TOXIC and dangerous to the human body. The fact that all smoke contains carbon-monoxides alone is the chief point behind that statement. However, the level of concentration (PPM for example) and consistency of exposure is what will determine the effect on the body. Whether the smoke is from paper, candles, cigars, or marijuana, if I put you in a little room and increase it to a high enough concentration even with a sustainable oxygen flow, you're going down for the count. The particulates will irritate your mucous membranes and ultimately your lungs will be incapable of processing oxygen into you cardie-vascular system. Even if you were to survive, the lingering particulates would have a lasting effect and likely lead to tissue scarring in your lungs. Of course, that is a purely biomechanical reaction to smoke, and not toxicity is the purest sense of the word. So, lets examine that next.

If take ANY or the aforementioned smokes and expose you to them over a prolonged period of time in smaller concentrations that you do not perceive as irritating, but which you do inhale directly, you will increase you chances of cancer. This includes the marijuana. That statement is supported by the following:

1. Many of the carcinogens and co-carcinogens present in tobacco smoke are also present in smoke from marijuana.

2. One of the most potent carcinogens in tobacco smoke, benzo-pyrene, is present in even greater amounts in marijuana smoke. As marijuana smokers frequently inhale and hold the smoke in their lungs, this increases the amount of tar deposited in the respiratory system by about a factor of four.

3. Marijuana smoking does cause inflammation and cell damage, and it has been associated with pre-cancerous changes in lung tissue.

4. Marijuana has been shown to cause immune system dysfunction, possibly predisposing individuals to cancer.

5. Compared to tobacco, smoking marijuana results in five times the amount of absorption of carbon monoxide and four to five times more tar being retained in the lungs

So, why is this position not more prevalent withing the medical research? Well, smoking marijuana is generally illegal and therefore lacks to necessary frequency of use on which a valid sampling can be established. Even the dangers of tobacco didn't arise until after WWII when smoking increased dramatically and availed researchers to more data.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:31PM

You're very poorly informed.

There have actually been many studies on the effects of marijuana smoke.
I was going to try to find some links to reputable sources that support my claims (such as the UCLA, Journal of the American Medical Association, American Association of Cancer Research, various doctors and other 'experts'...), but then I came across this YouTube video which seems to cover most of the research (I only skimmed through it).

You might want to watch it:
http://youtu.be/IzJVT38pgFE


If you're not really into videos, or would like additional information, it's not hard to find using a search engine. Just keep in mind that 'The Partnership for a Drug-Free America', 'Above the Influence', and any of the other anti-drug campaigns or organizations are extremely unreliable sources for honest and accurate information on drugs, as are most government websites. By definition, these groups oppose drugs, and that necessitates a reason, which they often provide by misrepresenting, skewing, or ommiting data.

Also, it has been believed for a long time now that the primary cause of cancer from tobacco is not due to the presence of carcinogens, but rather due to the radiation produced by tobacco when burnt.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Mr. Brownie Baker ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:37PM

Two simple solutions to smoking.

A vaporizor, and eating it will eliminate the need to smoke.

Refute that.

Refute the benefits for cancer patients.

Please, I'm waiting.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 13, 2012 11:46PM

I think he already knows that, he seems to be focusing exclusively on the smoke right now, which makes sense, as smoking is the most common method of use.
Though even if the smoke WAS proven to cause cancer (which it will not/cannot), that alone is far from reason enough to justify prohibition.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: August West ()
Date: January 14, 2012 02:24AM

Bud, there was an article in the Post the other day about a longitudinal study which found that smoking the equivalent of one joint a week and even slightly more produced no harmful effects on the lungs.

I'd provide a link but am currently high and don't feel like it. Listening to some Infamous Stringdusters, all is well...

I hope that you feel as strongly about alcohol and tobacco for the sake of ethos

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 14, 2012 10:36AM

This is going down the path of global warming. With each point of research, I find another source doing a 180. The quality of research (or lack and bias in many case) is insufficient for logical debate. I see a clear bias on both sides of the issue. Rather than try to debate from fact, I will quite openly state my opinion based purely on my first hand knowledge of the drug issue in general with specific attention to marijuana use and it perceived innocence is the drug hierarchy. So, here you go with pure opinion and first hand observations albeit parochial:

Of my closest friends, one is a regular MJ smoker; he's a bum

Another friend is an irregular user. He's in a job where he is subject to drug testing. He is married and has kids, but smokes MJ even if it means loss of employment.

A third was a heavy user in school and he barely managed to get out of high school and avoided college because of his grades. He eventually stopped using anything, but his early decisions were ruinous for his future. He is currently unemployed with no marketable skills.

I've never used any illegal drug. I did well in school, I joined the military. I ultimately found myself in an exceptional professional career with an income several fold above the standard even in the DC area.

I have never had to lie about using drugs or had to fear being tested. One less thing for which to worry in life.

I have never done or said anything stupid because I was high.

Smoking anything for the first time makes people cough. That's your body's way of telling you that what you are putting inside of it is not good and is being rejected. It's a natural protective reflex. Sure, you can trick it with acclimation.

I go to California a lot. In some areas, people openly solicit "medicinal" marijuana on the street by asking you first if you are over 18, and then trying to get you to a doctor who will prescribe it for any ailment. It is an artful and legal way of increasing market share by recruiting users. In the old days, these folks were called "pushers."

Like it or not, whether you argue that aspect of policy, society ill, or economics, there is a drug war in our midst and it costs human lives. Each time you smoke a joint, you indirectly contribute to that war. You can certainly argue that that it might be lessened with legalization, but I would argue further that it would be eradicated altogether without demand. Both are unrealisitc.

Using any drug is like getting a tattoo. You first consider it because you see others do it. Culturally, there are an increasing number of people who market it's trendy elements and percentage of society will do anything to fit in and belong to something. In the end, however, you are trying to belong at the expense of doing something that your body does not want you to do.

Finally, while you're sitting there rolling your joint or filling your bowl, toking away, and "expanding" your mind, people like me are doing much, much more. We do things that add to our wealth and power; we contribute to society; we pay the taxes that you can't afford (and sometimes we avoid taxes and dump them on you); we do things that advance the nation and its people. In short, we have learned to work the system. We will counter you at every turn because you can only look inward and lack the wherewithal to affect things beyond your tiny little circle of life. When it is all said and done, you need your weed to cope. So, smoke up, Johnny! I'd prefer to keep you in your place, but I do have one caveat: if you try to push that stuff on me or mine, I will feed you your own cremaster.

As for your opinions, in the words of Arthur Miller, "A fart of Thomas Putnam."

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: The High Guy ()
Date: January 14, 2012 06:11PM

Soo...i'm listening to tool right now because i'm real baked.

wut are you guys listening to?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 14, 2012 09:34PM

Ha! Quod erat demonstrandum!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 15, 2012 02:30AM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is going down the path of global warming.
> With each point of research, I find another source
> doing a 180. The quality of research (or lack and
> bias in many case) is insufficient for logical
> debate.


I'm not sure which sources you refer to, but 'researchers' have been doing 'studies' on the effects of marijuana since the start of its prohibition. The methods used in the majority of the early studies are no longer considered valid by any reputable member of the modern scientific community. Much has been written as to why, and won't bore you with the details (which shouldn't be difficult to find).


> I see a clear bias on both sides of the
> issue. Rather than try to debate from fact,

Which of the sources I directed you toward did you find 'biased'? The AMA? UCLA? The AACR? Or have you just been reading editorials from High Times magazine..?


> I will
> quite openly state my opinion based purely on my
> first hand knowledge of the drug issue in general
> with specific attention to marijuana use and it
> perceived innocence is the drug hierarchy. So,
> here you go with pure opinion and first hand
> observations albeit parochial:
>
> Of my closest friends, one is a regular MJ smoker;
> he's a bum
> Another friend is an irregular user. He's in a job
> where he is subject to drug testing. He is married
> and has kids, but smokes MJ even if it means loss
> of employment.
> A third was a heavy user in school and he barely
> managed to get out of high school and avoided
> college because of his grades. He eventually
> stopped using anything, but his early decisions
> were ruinous for his future. He is currently
> unemployed with no marketable skills.



You seem plenty intelligent enough to recognize a logical fallacy, yet here you are giving examples of people that smoke and don't meet your standards. For every smoker that is a complete fuck-up, there is a smoker that has been highly-successful. Should I quote criminal/racial coorelations as justification for the labeling of certain races as criminals? That is, in essence, what you are doing.


> I've never used any illegal drug. I did well in
> school, I joined the military. I ultimately found
> myself in an exceptional professional career with
> an income several fold above the standard even in
> the DC area.
> I have never had to lie about using drugs or had
> to fear being tested. One less thing for which to
> worry in life.


I haven't lied about smoking weed since graduating high school, and I don't intend to unless I'm faced with no choice. I look at being a marijuana smoker as similar to being a homosexual (obviously the two are quite different, one being a hobby, and the other a sexual orientation, but stay with we here...). Why should you have to hide it? It's who you are/what you do. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, and I don't think it's a big deal. I don't think anyone should have a problem with it, and if they do, I consider that THEIR problem, not mine. The more smokers in the closet, the less prevelant smoking seems. We need every weed smoker to come out, so that people can see that they're just like everyone else. There are smokers of all ages, races, ethnicities, education levels, religions, political affiliations, sexual orientations...people of all backgrounds smoke.


> I have never done or said anything stupid because
> I was high.



Ever done anything stupid sober? What about said anything stupid?

Everyone does/says things that are stupid, time to time. But stupid people do stupid things far more often that smart people, and weed has very little impact on this.



> Smoking anything for the first time makes people
> cough. That's your body's way of telling you that
> what you are putting inside of it is not good and
> is being rejected.


Explain why the pain experienced by a woman during the loss of her virginity, not to mention childbirth, is somehow an exception. What about alcohol? Piercings? I can't possibly imagine a way to explain gangrene.
You can't just generalize about things like that.



> I go to California a lot. In some areas, people
> openly solicit "medicinal" marijuana on the street
> by asking you first if you are over 18, and then
> trying to get you to a doctor who will prescribe
> it for any ailment. It is an artful and legal way
> of increasing market share by recruiting users. In
> the old days, these folks were called "pushers."


That is actually illegal now. One of my friends (now living back in NoVA) lost his job when they changed the law.
And you're quite mistaken in your used of the word 'recruiting'. Trust me, people that have never smoked before were never the target market.
Also, even where it's illegal, NO ONE 'pushes' weed. You push hard drugs, you CAN'T push drugs like marijuana. The verb 'push' is quite different in implication than 'sell' or 'deal'.



> Like it or not, whether you argue that aspect of
> policy, society ill, or economics, there is a drug
> war in our midst and it costs human lives. Each
> time you smoke a joint, you indirectly contribute
> to that war. You can certainly argue that that it
> might be lessened with legalization, but I would
> argue further that it would be eradicated
> altogether without demand. Both are unrealisitc.


Well, if you want to put it that way...quite frankly it is no consequence. You will find no smoker that takes sides with the government on this issue.
But it seems you may be speaking about something else. There are people that would have you believe purchasing drugs somehow supports terrorist and terroristic groups/organizations. While for many hard drugs, this is true to a certain extent (though legalization/regulation would correct that...), it is NOT true of marijuana.
I wasn't planning on mentioning any of this, but as it is relevant, I think you may benefit from it:
I sell weed. I have for a while, taking breaks here and there, but I have years of experience. So let me explain to you how this works. The product? It's grown domestically, by people that truely love what they do, and put their heart and soul into it (so on one end of the money trail are hardworking Americans). This isn't shitty Mexi-weed - it's quality American-grown grade A canabis. Middlemen are boring, so we'll skip that part. On my end, I do practically nothing. I use scales and bags - that's about all there is to it. I don't really think of myself as a 'dealer' - it's more like just supplying people, half of whom I've already smoked with anyway. New customers are never new smokers. I don't 'push', I don't even really market the product, unless someone inquires as to its quality. And as far as quality is concerned, I only deal in the highest (lol - 'highest') quality and most potent weed available in this market (which means one need not consume as much to achieve the desire effect). It wasn't long ago that all the good weed came from Canada - now American weed is finally starting to get some recognition.

Anyway, hopefully I haven't made you hate me by sharing this. Just hoping it might give you a more realistic picture.


>
> Using any drug is like getting a tattoo. You first
> consider it because you see others do it.
> Culturally, there are an increasing number of
> people who market it's trendy elements and
> percentage of society will do anything to fit in
> and belong to something. In the end, however, you
> are trying to belong at the expense of doing
> something that your body does not want you to do.


I've never smoked marijuana to 'fit in', and that doesn't describe any 'real' smokers.
And I disagree with your assessment of tattoos. Some people (such as myself) are turned off by things the more popular they are. Of course, this wouldn't apply to marijuana (or any consumable).



The rest of your post makes me question my previous assessment of your intelligence.

> Finally, while you're sitting there rolling your
> joint or filling your bowl, toking away, and
> "expanding" your mind, people like me are doing
> much, much more.


You know what one of my favorite things to do while smoking is? Reading philosophy. And poetry and history. And playing the synthesizer, mandola, concertina, harmonica, or tin whistle (or other intstrument). And listening to music. And working on foreign languages, doing research (or sometimes homework), keeping up to date on foreign affairs (in addition to domestic).
Sometime I might smoke with a friend before watching a film, or even seeing an opera (or concerts, obviously). Maybe it seems like a nice day to take a walk with a joint. Or maybe a bong and a video game would be more appropriate for the weather (video games are no more productive when sober).
Hell, I just wrote all this shit...you can do anything when you're high - that's your choice. You set your own limitations.


> We do things that add to our
> wealth and power; we contribute to society;


I'm sorry, but you sound like an arrogant fucking moron right now. Did you read this shit before posting it? If you actually stand by this nonsense, I strongly urge you to return to school and take a course in basic logic.



> we pay
> the taxes that you can't afford (and sometimes we
> avoid taxes and dump them on you); we do things
> that advance the nation and its people. In short,
> we have learned to work the system. We will
> counter you at every turn because you can only
> look inward and lack the wherewithal to affect
> things beyond your tiny little circle of life.



You are incredibly naive, and quite blind to the world around you. There are smokers everywhere, doing everything. There are many famous smokers who are successful authors, actors, musicians, artists, politicians (not openly in America)... this isn't the 1940s. Everyone does it. No one is forcing you to smoke, don't be the asshole that tells someone that can't make anything of themselves simply because they enjoy smoking marijuana. That's fucking stupid and irrational.


> When it is all said and done, you need your weed
> to cope.

It sounds like you need to keep trying to convince yourself to 'cope'. But with what/whom? Who ashed their joint in your cereal?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Bud Hoal ()
Date: January 15, 2012 09:19AM

Uber,

Well countered and well written, but you know that you are the aberration.

Oh, and while I tend to avoid meaningless vulgarities and baseless personal attacks, I get the idea that you have peppered your narrative with more bullshit than have I!!!

Bud

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 15, 2012 04:13PM

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uber,
>
> Well countered and well written, but you know that
> you are the aberration.

Morals are subjective. I bring no harm to the harmless.
And I'm one of the most ethical people you'll find, especially in this industry.


> Oh, and while I tend to avoid meaningless
> vulgarities and baseless personal attacks,


Yes, you have refrained from swearing, and I have not. I see no reason to limit my use of the English language in this context. My current literature doctor professor swears rather frequently in class, but he is clearly quite brilliant, and the swearing, if anything, only makes him more interesting/distinguished to listen to. But I only swore 6 times anyway. That's not all that much, considering what all I typed.
And besides, I see no issue with using 'fucking' (as an intensifier, not a verb), 'fuck-up' (in reference to a deadbeat/burnout), 'shitty' (as an adjective), or 'shit' (as a noun meaning 'things'/'stuff') in the context which I have used them. Were this a formal debate, they would be absent.

However, in regards to personal attacks - what was that whole diatribe you posted in your previous post (the one I last responded to), if not a 'baseless peronal attack'?
And I'll remind you, you're the one that just refered to me as an 'aberration'.



> I get
> the idea that you have peppered your narrative
> with more bullshit than have I!!!


What, out of everything I've written, do you suspect to be 'bullshit'? You need to be more specific, if I am to (attempt to) assuage your doubts.
But know that I pride myself on accuracy and precision. As I've said earlier in this message, I have very strong ethics, which I hold in high esteem.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Fugid ()
Date: January 15, 2012 09:41PM

listening to you guys trying to outdo each other is like watching a democrat and a republican debate

the narc will never admit anything good about weed and the pot head won't say there is anything bad about

the funniest part is you wasting all this time on here shaking virtual your fists at each other like old man facing off in a retirement home!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Stoner Thread
Posted by: Übermensch ()
Date: January 16, 2012 03:00AM

I disagree. I think most of the discussion has been both civil and as well as productive.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **         **    **  ********   ********   **     ** 
 **    **    **  **   **     **  **     **  **     ** 
 **    **     ****    **     **  **     **  **     ** 
 **    **      **     **     **  ********   **     ** 
 *********     **     **     **  **     **  **     ** 
       **      **     **     **  **     **  **     ** 
       **      **     ********   ********    *******  
This forum powered by Phorum.