PDA

View Full Version : Do you smoke?


Pages : 1 [2]

Al Kaplan
12-16-2008, 13:05
Yup, legalizing it would get a lot of criminals off the street for sure. My grandfather was in the wholesale liquor business both before and after prohibition. Guess what he did for a living during prohibition? He became a criminal and stayed (pretty openly too) in the wholesale liquor business. If everybody in public office were to admit to their current and past drug use Washington, D.C., the state capitols and the city halls, the courts, and corporate offices would all be gost towns. Remember, the garbage collectors and office workers get drug tested while elected officials and top management get a free ride.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 13:18
Yup, legalizing it would get a lot of criminals off the street for sure. My grandfather was in the wholesale liquor business both before and after prohibition. Guess what he did for a living during prohibition? He became a criminal and stayed (pretty openly too) in the wholesale liquor business. If everybody in public office were to admit to their current and past drug use Washington, D.C., the state capitols and the city halls, the courts, and corporate offices would all be gost towns. Remember, the garbage collectors and office workers get drug tested while elected officials and top management get a free ride.

That's just the 'bigger criminal' side-step. "I'm not that bad, there are worse criminals than me." It doesn't work.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/Drugs/default.asp

Drug trafficking is frequently linked to other serious crimes such as people smuggling, organized prostitution and travel-document counterfeiting. It is often cited as a means to finance the more violent and destructive activities of criminal and terrorist organizations, because of the major cash benefits derived from relatively minimal time and investment.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 13:24
Using this 'logic', every day 100k's of drivers that exceed the speed limit by just a few mph (law breakers) are more violent to our society then a thousand drunks? :D

No, nor did I say anything even remotely resembling that. You're intelligent, so I must conclude you are twisting my words intentionally because you have no logical response.

The logic of crime is that one person commits it, which is bad, but it is a solitary offense against society - or a person commits the type of crime which engages a criminal enterprise, ultimately involved hundreds or thousands of people.

If I punch a guy in the mouth, that's bad. If I pay a mobster to punch a guy in the mouth, that's worse. Because in the latter example, I am supporting mobsters and their illegal depredations on society.

If I steal a watch, that's bad. But if I buy a counterfeit Rolex, I am supporting groups that have known links to terrorist organizations - my money goes to buy bombs and ammunition for people who want to kill my countrymen (see my link to Interpol in previous post).

It is not the crime, it is the organization it supports, and the damage they do. DUI drivers kill people. But they do not support thousands of people who are smuggling booze into the country, bribing officials, killing competitors, and funneling money back into terrorist coffers. Drug users do that.

Again, sorry if you do not like it. Those are not 'feelings', that is cold hard logic. Like I said, irrefutable, unless you intend to continue playing silly buggers.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 13:35
^ Hmm, good point(s) and I can agree with that for the most part.

If you're speeding, however - you yourself are breaking the law but also endangering others through your reckless driving. So it's technically not "just you." Running a red light is even more reckless and the consequences could include killing innocent person(s).


You are the only one committing a crime if you speed. The lives you endanger are finite and relatively small compared to the huge number threatened by terrorists funded by drug purchases.


I understand the intent of your reply though and basically do agree. But I have to say, I think society, in general, has deeper issues to worry about. While the economy of drugs may be funding terrorism, it doesn't stop the terrorists from being just that - they'll fund their operations and continue their evil operations in other ways. Drugs aren't the cause of terrorism.

"You can steal more with a briefcase than a gun." (witness the $50B Madoff scam)

Drugs are not the cause of terrorism? Well, illegal drugs are. Narco-terrorism is certainly caused by drugs. No drugs, no narco-terrorism. However, if you are referring to the more 'traditional' religion-based terrorism, then I agree - they are opportunistic and will take their funding wherever and whenever they can.

However, knowing that buying a dime bag could be funding people who want to destroy my country is more than enough, even if I had no other reasons, to not want to do so. For the same reason, I do not own a counterfeit watch. I will not willingly support terrorists. This is no different from those who boycott manufacturers who pollute - I am boycotting terrorists, and like environmentalists, pointing this out to others - if you buy illegal drugs, you are supporting those who wish to kill you.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 13:43
So at this point we have generalized statements with regards to terrorism and criminal activity but no hard and cold statistical data supporting the actual violence that our 'average stoner' perpetrates on society.

Again, you deflect instead of offering argument. The 'worse crook' theory simply says "Hey, don't mind me, there are worse crooks out there." Whether there are or not is immaterial. A side-argument that is mean to detract, and you do it because you have nothing to argue with. Sorry, won't work. Murderers are worse than rapists, perhaps, but rapists don't get a pass just because there are murderers out there.


We jump from statistical data supporting alcohol consumption with respect to its violence on our society, to the 'feelings' that every time our average stoner buys weed, he's buying it directly for osama himself :eek:

A) The average stoner does not grow his own, he buys it.

B) The DEA says that only a small percentage of marijuana is domestically-produced - this is about as close as anyone is going to come to 'fact', but some here reject that IN FAVOR of their own 'feelings' as they stated.

C) Even if produced domestically, the FBI says that outlaw biker gangs and ethnic gangs produce and distribute marijuana in this country. They steal land and resources, murder their competitors, bribe officials, and generate domestic terror.

D) Interpol says that illicit drugs fund terrorist organizations.

There is a straight, bright, line connecting the average stoner to groups like FARC, MILF, the Taliban, Al Qaida, et al. If you don't wish to acknowledge it, fine with me. It does not change facts.

The pot did not magically appear in the stoner's baggie. Unless he grew it himself, he bought it. If he bought it, he bought it at the end of a long distribution chain that extends from him to the grower, criminals every one, and many of them violent thugs or actual terrorists who severely damage society.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 13:46
So you can't simply say, "hey, it was just ME speeding."

Yes, I can. Potential is not actuality. Not all speeders crash and hurt people.

But all people who buy illicit drugs support criminals who belong to a supply chain that extends back from the buyer to the grower, and involves those who DO hurt people. That's not potential, that's actuality.

The first example is 'some', and the second is 'all'.

lorriman
12-16-2008, 14:18
The diseases of smoking are mostly related to immune system strength. Cut out immuno suppressors, like vegetable and fish oils (perhaps excepting Olive and Palm) and cigarettes are not nearly as harmful as we are led to believe. Get a decent dose of the immuno vitamins A & D and smoking is likely to be of negligible influence health-wise.

The same applies to heart disease: it is a modern phenomena beginning in the 1920s and the real cause is almost certainly nothing to do with smoking which is probably only contributory.

The anti-smoking lobby is acting as an inadvertent smokescreen for other scourges that are far more harmful. Margarine, anyone? And lets not forget orange juice: so much sugar your cardiologist would have a fit.

stefan_dinu
12-16-2008, 14:35
However, knowing that buying a dime bag could be funding people who want to destroy my country is more than enough, ...

And this assertion is more than enough for me to see what happens in your mind. You like facts. Here are some facts:
1. There is no reason to make marijuana illegal; at least not in the same context where alcohol, caffeine and tobacco are legal.
2. Without this stupid incrimination all the other criminal related activity, that you impose, would be zero.
3. Providing info and stats about dope, from the American government entities....is funny, to say the least.
4. There are places on this planet where you can smoke pot without any trouble, but where you can go to jail for a bottle of scotch. And believe me, all these places are far more secure than most of the places in US.
There is always about context. A law does not change morals. Common sense is superior to any laws. What yesterday was allowed, tomorrow will be outlaw. What this means? That morality is changing? Or the laws are changing to support a way of living and the "general" interest. Which is not always that "general"
5. If "people that destroy my country" is your measure, then all Europeans should not buy or have any relations with the Americans because of the Wallstreet junk that destroy all the western economies by inflicting this tremendous crisis. I am not thinking like this, but this is how you would sound if you where born somewhere else. ;)
And what is your point anyway? I don't like pot? Or you don't like the fact that I like and smoke pot? What is to you? Or against you? And how much of those things against you are inflicted by the prohibition itself?
I am very happy that there are not many people who thinks like you on this issue. At least your president is not with you on this one. Not the moron, the new president.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 15:35
And yet, you pay your taxes?

Sidestep. Not working.

bmattock
12-16-2008, 15:36
Waitaminute. MILFs have their own gangs now?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moro_Islamic_Liberation_Front

jack palmer
12-16-2008, 15:54
bmattock ,You need to lighten up, sounds like you've been listening to to much Rush Limbaugh or watching to much Shaun Hannity or maybe you're just wearing your underwear to tight.

Gumby
12-16-2008, 15:55
And what is your point anyway? I don't like pot? Or you don't like the fact that I like and smoke pot? What is to you? Or against you? And how much of those things against you are inflicted by the prohibition itself?

I await the answers with baited breath. :rolleyes:

Al Kaplan
12-16-2008, 18:39
I guess maybe it's time to follow my neurologist's advice. She'll just be so proud to find out that I'm smoking pot again to control my seizures instead of supporting the big drug companies. Hmmmm...and my GP keeps telling me that if I was shtupping cute teenage girls I'd be unlikely to suffer from ED. This is getting better and better.

40oz
12-16-2008, 20:02
funny, I came to this thread because I am smoking a cigarette to the detriment of my health. I'm washing it down with a beer.

Once I check the latest posts, I find it's a discussion concerning pot, with one side being representing an intolerant position arguing that basically pot would be fine if it weren't illegal, and the other side being represented by rational and tolerant individuals saying the same thing pretty much lol.

"On the other hand, if a person in the USA buys pot, they are buying it, ipso facto, from criminals." (Only because possession is illegal, in point of fact.) Eerily similar to the "outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns" argument, IMHO.


Thank God I'm not hurting anything, much less myself, by smoking and drinking lol. It's the Demon Weed that causes all pain and suffering in this world :)

mcctoronto
12-16-2008, 20:09
Marijuana grown in the USA is grown in national forests and on public and private land that does not belong to the growers. They protect their interests with sophisticated alarm systems and kill trespassers. They are distributed by street gangs and outlaw motorcycle gangs that kill each others as well as innocent people who get in their way.

If you buy illegal drugs, your hands are not clean. You can think that they are if it helps you sleep better at night, but you're guilty in my opinion. I will do everything I can to make sure illegal drug buyers are arrested and prosecuted. I turn in drug dealers.

EDIT: And according to the DEA, only 25-30% of marijuana sold domestically in the US was grown here. Of course, with all illegal goods, estimates are prone to error.

Prone to an error of about 70 percent. That's one error they made on purpose. DEA loves to reword statements and use loopholes to make you believe and get their way. I have dealt drugs before. I sold weed on my bike for a delivery service like to the guy on the movie Half Baked. Met a lot of nice people. Learned a lot. I dare you to turn me in. PM me for an address. I would be proud to be arrested by such a fine law enforcement which has NEVER done anything wrong. HAHA !! I made a funny. The 25-30 percent your precious DEA refers to is the amount of drugs they put into community's themselves. Simply to meet quotas so they still have jobs in the end. Ever notice alot of police doing traffic and minor crimes at the end of the month? I have. Wonder why?

literiter
12-16-2008, 20:21
Once I check the latest posts, I find it's a discussion concerning pot, with one side being representing an intolerant position arguing that basically pot would be fine if it weren't illegal, and the other side being represented by rational and tolerant individuals saying the same thing pretty much lol.


This seems to point out the differences and odd similarities between the "conservative" mindset and the the "liberal" mindset. When all said and done the desires of each seems to amount to the same thing.
This is an interesting link talking about this very subject:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

RF_newbie
12-16-2008, 20:36
what did you say ?
oh man ...i have cotton mouth so bad, i need some ho-ho's and a 54 ounce thirstbuster. Oh no, where's my car man !
this is a killer conversation dude.....
OK what were you talking about ?
:smile:
really officer i thought it was legal in the state Utah !

mcctoronto
12-16-2008, 20:41
great video literiter

Al Kaplan
12-16-2008, 20:46
Yes indeed, the world is full of absolutes. One doctor telling me not to drive when I take my meds, the other telling me not to risk driving if I don't take them. Well, I just took my evening (legally prescribed) pill and I'm pleasantly stoned, a big drug company's profits are assured, and the children of some poor South American peasant will go to bed hungry again. Save The Children!

Morca007
12-16-2008, 21:13
There is a straight, bright, line connecting the average stoner to groups like FARC, MILF, the Taliban, Al Qaida, et al. If you don't wish to acknowledge it, fine with me. It does not change facts.

Seems there's only one option: Buy from a cause you support!


Now if only the EZLN grew marijuana...

bmattock
12-17-2008, 01:56
Once I check the latest posts, I find it's a discussion concerning pot, with one side being representing an intolerant position arguing that basically pot would be fine if it weren't illegal, and the other side being represented by rational and tolerant individuals saying the same thing pretty much lol.

That's not exactly correct. I initially only responded because I made a wisecrack in response to someone's assertion that they didn't smoke cigarettes (the implication being that they smoke something else) and I called pot smokers (half jokingly) 'criminal scum'.

I was asked to defend my remarks, and I did. Intolerant? I have made no judgments about pot, the benefits or lack of, please read what I said. In what way is it intolerant to point out that illegal purchases of pot fund criminal enterprises, including terrorist organizations? That's not a statement that can be said to be 'tolerant' or 'intolerant' - it is either true or false.

I have never said pot would be 'basically fine if not illegal', nor have I implied that. I have noted where illicit pot comes from, who funds and benefits from its sale.

bmattock
12-17-2008, 02:12
Yes indeed, the world is full of absolutes. One doctor telling me not to drive when I take my meds, the other telling me not to risk driving if I don't take them. Well, I just took my evening (legally prescribed) pill and I'm pleasantly stoned, a big drug company's profits are assured, and the children of some poor South American peasant will go to bed hungry again. Save The Children!

I love the comments - now that everyone has had some time to soak it all in, the apparent response is that no one can defeat my logic - so therefore, I am either 'intolerant' (according to some) or 'absolutist', not to mention 'right wing' and a Rush Limbaugh fan.

I do not know in what way it is a political 'absolutist' statement to say that the sun rises in the morning. I said that illicit drugs come from illicit sources, including terrorist organizations - that's nothing to to with absolutism, that's just fact, like the weather.

russianRF
12-17-2008, 02:21
So you agree that we should legalize it? It's been established that physically it's less damaging and addictive than, say, beer. If it were legalized it would instantly no longer be a source for illegitimate sources, including ethnic gangs, terrorists, and such. And you believe generally in the principles of capitalism, right? You understand that there is a market for it that isn't going away just because Uncle Sam wags his finger at you?

bmattock
12-17-2008, 02:43
So you agree that we should legalize it? It's been established that physically it's less damaging and addictive than, say, beer. If it were legalized it would instantly no longer be a source for illegitimate sources, including ethnic gangs, terrorists, and such. And you believe generally in the principles of capitalism, right? You understand that there is a market for it that isn't going away just because Uncle Sam wags his finger at you?

I agree that if marijuana were legalized in the USA, it would eliminate the illicit channels from which it comes, and end its usefulness as a source of income by various criminal organizations, including terrorists.

I agree with the principles of capitalism and free markets.

I also agree that the market is not going to go away because the US government wishes it to.

I will keep my opinion about the goodness or badness of marijuana as a relatively harmless recreational drug to myself, if you do not mind.

My observations were limited intentionally to describing the channels by which illicit pot is currently supplied - which seems to have unduly fashed a number of people, for reasons one can only speculate about.

mcctoronto
12-17-2008, 07:59
I didn't know people actually believed terrorists are in America. I now know there is no point in trying to talk because you are always right (wing).

40oz
12-17-2008, 16:38
That's not exactly correct. I initially only responded because I made a wisecrack in response to someone's assertion that they didn't smoke cigarettes (the implication being that they smoke something else) and I called pot smokers (half jokingly) 'criminal scum'.

I was asked to defend my remarks, and I did. Intolerant? I have made no judgments about pot, the benefits or lack of, please read what I said. In what way is it intolerant to point out that illegal purchases of pot fund criminal enterprises, including terrorist organizations? That's not a statement that can be said to be 'tolerant' or 'intolerant' - it is either true or false.

I have never said pot would be 'basically fine if not illegal', nor have I implied that. I have noted where illicit pot comes from, who funds and benefits from its sale.

You may not be intolerant in your mind, but your posts on this subject continually indicate an unwillingness to entertain any view other than "pot is wrong because it is illegal."

As far as your personal views on the dangers of pot, they are your opinion. The vast majority of scientific and anecdotal evidence says it is quite harmless in itself. Criminal enterprise fostered by the US legal and enforcement industry has caused definite and non-debatable damage to our society. Far more damage than mere consumption of the drug has ever caused.

You might be interested to know that in 1939, in response to widespread public alarm over the claims of Henry Ainslinger (First commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics) among others that marijuana was a scourge destroying the nation, the then-mayor of New York commissioned the New York Academy of Medicine to examine the problem of marijuana in New York City.

The study lasted five years, and the results were published in 1944. The bottom line was that the majority of users of marijuana were African-American or Latino. And that cut to the heart of the issue. There was no real issue except racism and immigration.
Communities in the Ssouther and western states were clamoring for a solution to their immigration and racial issues. Ainslinger was a bureaucrat who saw marijuana as a path to power and fame. He proceeded with a very public campaign to build support for ever greater funding and power. The issue for Ainslinger was that after prohibition, there really weren't any real big issues with narcotics in the US. Many people remembered a day when drugs like cocaine and heroin were not only legal but heralded as medical miracles. They also remembered the sobering truth of their real affect.

It wasn't real difficult for Ainslinger to manufacture a crisis around marijuana. After all, the blacks smoked it, and the Mexicans. Blacks and Mexicans were seen by many as a scourge unto themselves, and as minorities they were unlikely to pose a political threat. So they were a safe target that had little sympathy in the greater population.

Marijuana was fairly wide-spread if not exactly ubiquitous, so once Ainslinger managed to get it declared contaband, he had justification to ask for ever-increasing resources to combat it. This made him powerful and without question padded his own pockets.

The fact that this all came at the detriment to immigrants and the disenfranchised was to his advantage. We live today with a widespread belief that Ainslinger's propaganda was fact, when in reality the facts are a counter-argument.

Since September 11, 2001, Ainslinger's followers have turned to a new tactic - smoking pot helps terrorists. Despite the lack of any factual evidenec whatsoever, this propaganda has been disseminated widely. Even people with no knowledge, experience, or axe to grind repeat it as if it is unassailable truth.

I challenge you to find any objective evidence that organizations like Al Qaida benefit from homeboys in Harlem slinging bags for ten bucks. Provide a rational chain-of-supply from college kids back to terrorist organizations.

Morocco produces some of the finest weed available (according to their own claims :) ) but when I was there, I found no evidence of terrorist activity whatsoever. Same for Amsterdam. Or Northern California, Alaska, Hawaii, Mexico, etc. The evidence simply does not exist. There is simply no basis for the claim that buying a dime bag funds terrorism.

The people that make these claims have no proof. They simply say that it is so. They rely on the average American to assume they know something the rest of us don't.

A good friend is an inner-city vice cop. She has decades of experience, and simply dismisses the "threat of pot" as silly. Unless they stumble upon bales of the stuff, it goes in the gutter. The fact that they may occasionally find bales of pot when serving warrants on houses known to harbor kilo upon kilo of heroin and cocaine speaks to the fact that pot too is contraband, and there is money to be made. It is in no way guilt by association for pot.

My local metro community police recently celebrated the fact that they busted 20-30 pot growing houses located in surrounding suburbs puts the lie to claims that pot in the US is primarily imported. It's just not true. And even that which is imported comes from regions of the world that are not hotbeds of terror groups. Morocco? Please. I've been there, I know more about it than you do. The Netherlands? Again, please engage rational thought. Hawaii? Alaska? Canada? Mexico? These are most definitely not places our esteemed President and his brain trust have warned you about, and for good reason. Don't you think if there was some real issue with these places funding horrific acts of violence, they'd be on the public watch list?

Why have major metropolitan cities like Vancouver, Amsterdam, et al, along with numerous US states decided that marijuana offenses are more of an economic pain than they are worth? I live in Minnesota, and since decriminalization, have seen violent crime actually decrease. I'm not even suggesting a correlation, merely pointing out that there is no fatal repercussion for relaxing of penalties.

You claim you are not intolerant. You claim to be aware of the facts. So please look at the facts you have, analyze them with logic and rational thought, and consider your position. Feel free to take your time. I'm not suggesting it is fair to expect you to agree with me today. But you are not dumb. I think you will agree that whatever the real facts are, what we are being told by drug enforcement arms is not even plausible.

It is one thing to state an opinion that pot holds little real benefit for a person. it is quite another to suggest that pot causes damage to societies. Draconian enforcement policies cause real, immediate harm. Smoking pot at worst causes a person to work minimum wage and just get by. I don't smoke pot very often for the same reason I don't get drunk every night - it isn't productive. :)

Rayt
12-17-2008, 18:25
What bothers me about pot is that 12 year olds are smoking the stuff. If it is legal and regulated and I don't know if that would address this problem but it should help a lot since clandescent dealing would be rarer.

literiter
12-17-2008, 18:40
12 year olds are drinking booze, 12 year olds are smoking cigarettes, 12 year olds are sniffing glue. More available than pot and just as (if not more) insidious.
The issue is substance abuse and the conditions that encourage it. I dunno.. like poverty, ignorance, abandonment etc.

RF_newbie
12-17-2008, 20:04
i actually read somewhere (Chomsky?) that although terrorists organizations do involve themselves in the heroin trade (among others) that Al Qaida WOULD NOT because of some religious face saving. i personally believe though, that AL Quida is in cahoots with Starbucks .

Al Kaplan
12-17-2008, 20:10
...and again last week my neurologist said I'd be better off smoking pot than using the Lamictal she prescribes.

As for Starbucks? Hell, I'm the one who's in cahoots with the baristas at my friendly neighborhood supplier of some really primo caffeine!

RF_newbie
12-17-2008, 22:10
As for Starbucks? Hell, I'm the one who's in cahoots with the baristas at my friendly neighborhood supplier of some really primo caffeine!

and i dare anyone to call Al Kaplan a Coffee Drinking Commi Liberal Terrorist Supporter. :rolleyes:

mirrored
12-18-2008, 05:49
Why is so common to quit smoking with years? It's a one primary step for better potency.

http://www.google.fi/search?q=impotence+and+smoking&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:fi:official&client=firefox-a

:rolleyes:

rocheung
12-18-2008, 06:10
;););)enjoy smoking

Dave Wilkinson
12-18-2008, 06:14
...and again last week my neurologist said I'd be better off smoking pot than using the Lamictal she prescribes.

As for Starbucks? Hell, I'm the one who's in cahoots with the baristas at my friendly neighborhood supplier of some really primo caffeine! I only went in a Starbucks once, - for a coffee.....don't know about your side of the pond, but here it's cheaper to smoke!! :mad:

rogue_designer
12-18-2008, 09:56
i actually read somewhere (Chomsky?) that although terrorists organizations do involve themselves in the heroin trade (among others) that Al Qaida WOULD NOT because of some religious face saving. i personally believe though, that AL Quida is in cahoots with Starbucks .

The Taliban at first would not - and clamped down on the Heroin/Opium trade better than the US did. But, I think they need the money now, and have made concessions.

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 10:35
Shhhhh, don't tell anybody....but Starbucks will give you a refill (coffee only, no fancy drinks) for 50 cents plus tax. That leaves money for a smoke. The Starbucks I frequent is about the same distance from three nearby universities so it's always full of "eye candy" and I enjoy flirting with them, take a photo on occasion, or help them with their homework.

So far potency hasn't been a problem. I'm only 66, still wear the same size clothes I wore at 18, and have all my hair. The doc told me I'm good for another thirty years. My only concern is that I'll start seeing some nice young woman, get invited to join her family for Christmas dinner, and discover that her grandmother and I used to be lovers. ;-)

Morca007
12-18-2008, 11:12
Even in college towns, the most interesting people won't be found at a franchise. ;)

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 11:14
So far I've resisted becoming a franchise operation.

unclescarMT
12-18-2008, 11:46
boy howdy I'm having fun, just smoking dope and watching you guys argue. shouldn't we all just go out and shoot instead?

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 11:50
I actually had a guy call me up this morning wanting to buy a print of one of my Bob Dylan photos and pay for it with pot. For REAL!

mcctoronto
12-18-2008, 12:23
Do the terrorists profit from a weed/print barter?

felix5616
12-18-2008, 13:39
Does crack count?

Al Kaplan
12-18-2008, 13:51
The only "crack" I'm interested in is usually refered to as "pink".

rogue_designer
12-18-2008, 14:45
Those Hemingway's surprised me too.

I'm on an AVO kick still, personally. Never could get into Padron.

sepiareverb
12-18-2008, 16:00
No, nor did I say anything even remotely resembling that. You're intelligent, so I must conclude you are twisting my words intentionally because you have no logical response.

The following is a direct quote:

It is not the crime, it is the organization it supports, and the damage they do. DUI drivers kill people. But they do not support thousands of people who are smuggling booze into the country, bribing officials, killing competitors, and funneling money back into terrorist coffers. Drug users do that.

Again, sorry if you do not like it. Those are not 'feelings', that is cold hard logic. Like I said, irrefutable, unless you intend to continue playing silly buggers.

So, by this logic buying pot from a local elderly woman who grows it organically herself, and uses the money to supplement her social security wouldn't be a bad thing. You don't seriously believe she's sending any portion of the cash I pay her over to the Taliban or down to some Mexican/Colombian cartel do you? No, she's buying food and firewood with it.

RF_newbie
12-18-2008, 19:07
Do the terrorists profit from a weed/print barter?
Does crack count?
The only "crack" I'm interested in is usually refered to as "pink".
HAHAHHAHAHAHA

ruby.monkey
01-07-2009, 04:42
I used to - twenty or more a day for fifteen years, starting when I was eighteen. And then one morning it struck me just how stupid an addiction this was, and I quit over the course of a fortnight. This was about seven years ago, and I haven't smoked anything since.

Not that I haven't found another addiction to replace the ciggies, mind...