goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Institutional Control on April 23, 2014, 01:23:57 PM
-
I thought this was a pretty interesting article. I've always been of the mind that if you're old enough to enlist in the army, you're old enough to drink.
http://time.com/72546/drinking-age-alcohol-repeal/
-
I can't think of one 18 year old that I would want drinking (legally). Awful idea.
-
18 is probably too young to be put in a combat situation, IMO.
-
If you are an adult for all other intents and purposes at 18 then you should be able to drink legally as an adult.
Also, is this true... :surprised:
"pot ... can produce physiological feminization in men."
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
-
We have plenty of time to be alcoholics. We don't need an extra 3 year start to do it. :nono:
-
We have plenty of time to be alcoholics. We don't need an extra 3 year start to do it. :nono:
Yeah because there aren't any 18-20 year olds drinking alcohol now due to it being illegal.
-
We have plenty of time to be alcoholics. We don't need an extra 3 year start to do it. :nono:
Yeah because there aren't any 18-20 year olds drinking alcohol now due to it being illegal.
Fair, but they're conservative with it. :dunno: I don't know, I don't really care I guess.
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
But you have to be 17 to get a full driver's license (in Kansas).
-
The only two times I scared my self due to being dangerously drunk was when I was underage(under 18 too, though).
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
But you have to be 17 to get a full driver's license (in Kansas).
Really? When did that change? Used to be able to get a learners at 14, restricted(work and school) anytime after 14 when you take the test, and full at 16.
-
How are 16 year olds suppose to work and save up for college if they can't drive? :dunno:
-
The article was interesting (if not insanely biased) I'd be curious to read an article with a solid counterpoint.
-
The only two times I scared my self due to being dangerously drunk was when I was underage(under 18 too, though).
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
But you have to be 17 to get a full driver's license (in Kansas).
Really? When did that change? Used to be able to get a learners at 14, restricted(work and school) anytime after 14 when you take the test, and full at 16.
It has been changed for many years. Now you have to go through all these steps at different ages with a bunch of hours of driving experience to move from one step to the next.
-
That sounds horrible. They shouldn't do that, they should just make the driving test last more than once around the block.
-
How are 16 year olds suppose to work and save up for college if they can't drive? :dunno:
You can get a restricted permit at 15 which allows to you to drive to work (but only after having a learner's permit for a full year).
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
A group of like minded students and I tried to push a law through the Kansas Legislature after 5 driving related deaths in our area in one year by young drivers. It unfortunately died in committee. I would be curious to see what the correlation in other nations between driving age and driving licensing are in order to determine if that is a worthwhile endeavor.
On the topic at hand. . .the article mentions how most countries in the world allow younger drinking. Is there any proof that younger drinking age leads to more drinking responsibility?
-
How are 16 year olds suppose to work and save up for college if they can't drive? :dunno:
You can get a restricted permit at 15 which allows to you to drive to work (but only after having a learner's permit for a full year).
Yeah, I know, but mich is saying he doesn't want 16 year olds driving. I was just asking what they're suppose to be doing at the age?
-
How are 16 year olds suppose to work and save up for college if they can't drive? :dunno:
You can get a restricted permit at 15 which allows to you to drive to work (but only after having a learner's permit for a full year).
Yeah, I know, but mich is saying he doesn't want 16 year olds driving. I was just asking what they're suppose to be doing at the age?
:thumbs:
-
Move driving age to 18
-
How are 16 year olds suppose to work and save up for college if they can't drive? :dunno:
take the bus, ride a bike, get a ride, etc.
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
A group of like minded students and I tried to push a law through the Kansas Legislature after 5 driving related deaths in our area in one year by young drivers. It unfortunately died in committee. I would be curious to see what the correlation in other nations between driving age and driving licensing are in order to determine if that is a worthwhile endeavor.
On the topic at hand. . .the article mentions how most countries in the world allow younger drinking. Is there any proof that younger drinking age leads to more drinking responsibility?
1 out of every 5 military deaths are soldiers under 21.
-
Here's an idea, let's send our children to college with 1 year or less driving experience.
-
Here's an idea, let's send our children to college with 1 year or less driving experience.
Or drive a tank after having driven a car for 6 months.
-
Here's an idea, let's send our children to college with 1 year or less driving experience.
Am fine with that as long as they can conceal carry.
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
A group of like minded students and I tried to push a law through the Kansas Legislature after 5 driving related deaths in our area in one year by young drivers. It unfortunately died in committee. I would be curious to see what the correlation in other nations between driving age and driving licensing are in order to determine if that is a worthwhile endeavor.
On the topic at hand. . .the article mentions how most countries in the world allow younger drinking. Is there any proof that younger drinking age leads to more drinking responsibility?
When was this? I closely monitor all public policy discussions regarding transportation in the state of Kansas, and I've never heard of that initiative from you and your fellow enterprising young scholars.
-
Here's an idea, let's send our children to college with 1 year or less driving experience.
Or drive a tank after having driven a car for 6 months.
Tanks seem a lot safer than cars. :dunno:
-
I mean think about it, how many people die in tanks a year? Probably not very many.
-
So few apparently we don't even keep statistics on it. You know what kills more people than tanks? Hot air balloons. :sdeek:
-
All kinds of tank accidents on Youtube.
http://youtu.be/sTcr7AwCCBw
-
All kinds of tank accidents on Youtube.
http://youtu.be/sTcr7AwCCBw
Don't see any injuries. :dunno:
-
I bet Steve Dave Jr thinks tricycles are dangerous, too. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tea4xmNXK0
-
I bet Steve Dave Jr thinks tricycles are dangerous, too. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tea4xmNXK0
I'm pretty sure there were some injuries in that tricycle montage. Had to be.
-
I agree on lowering the drinking age. I'd take it all the way down to 16 or 17 to get kids some exposure to legal drinking prior to heading off to college. It seems to work most everywhere else in the world. But, I'd also raise the driving age to 20 (farm kids could still drive combines at 14 bc that's awesome). I would also raise the voting age to 30 unless you either (a) enlist in the military, or (b) own real property. I would also re-ban pot because, while there's always an exception that proves the rule, I've never met a frequent pot smoker who wasn't a lazy slob. I knew some pretty smart kids in high school that got heavy into weed. Things did not go so well after high school for them.
All of these changes would significantly improve our society and government.
-
I've met plenty of pot smokers who are not lazy slobs. :dunno:
-
I've met plenty of pot smokers who are not lazy slobs. :dunno:
Braggart.
-
I agree on lowering the drinking age. I'd take it all the way down to 16 or 17 to get kids some exposure to legal drinking prior to heading off to college. It seems to work most everywhere else in the world. But, I'd also raise the driving age to 20 (farm kids could still drive combines at 14 bc that's awesome). I would also raise the voting age to 30 unless you either (a) enlist in the military, or (b) own real property. I would also re-ban pot because, while there's always an exception that proves the rule, I've never met a frequent pot smoker who wasn't a lazy slob. I knew some pretty smart kids in high school that got heavy into weed. Things did not go so well after high school for them.
All of these changes would significantly improve our society and government.
I guarantee you have met a surprisingly high number, but had no clue.
-
The whole "pot smokers are lazy slobs" talking point is a myth.
-
Anyone that would be for lowering the drinking age to 16, but keeping pot illegal, is a complete bona fide Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
The whole "pot smokers are lazy slobs" talking point is a myth.
I think it's 50/50. My roommate in college was a rough ridin' loser and worthless. However, I know many that aren't. Just like alcohol, some can handle it, some can't.
-
Sure, you're average 17 year old high school stoner bro is probably lazy. But I'm talking about adults that have real life responsibilities who use recreationally.
-
The whole "pot smokers are lazy slobs" talking point is a myth.
I think it's 50/50. My roommate in college was a rough ridin' loser and worthless. However, I know many that aren't. Just like alcohol, some can handle it, some can't.
That doesn't quite add up to 50/50. :)
-
@ell I know a lot of successful pot smokers. My brother came out to my parents this last year that he does it on a regular basis, like he was coming out of the closet. It was a big deal to him, but they've known for years. :lol:
-
The whole "pot smokers are lazy slobs" talking point is a myth.
I think it's 50/50. My roommate in college was a rough ridin' loser and worthless. However, I know many that aren't. Just like alcohol, some can handle it, some can't.
That doesn't quite add up to 50/50. :)
:shakesfist: :)
-
Alcohol destroys far more lives and families than pot. Honestly it's rough ridin' ridiculous that binge drinking is socially acceptable but if you smoke a joint you're automatically labeled a loser.
-
I agree.
-
artifacts like K-S-U better start swimming, or they'll sink like a stone.
-
Alcohol destroys far more lives and families than pot. Honestly it's rough ridin' ridiculous that binge drinking is socially acceptable but if you smoke a joint you're automatically labeled a loser.
It's because no one smokes joints anymore grandpa.
-
How can you claim to be a small government conservative, and then want to increase the voting age to 30 and ban marijuana? I mean, those things seem kind of contradictory.
-
Sure, some pot smokers are lazy just like some non-pot smokers are lazy. Some 17 year old pot smokers are lazy just like some 17 year old non-pot smokers are lazy; and some 17 year old pot smokers are not lazy.
-
Sure, some pot smokers are lazy just like some non-pot smokers are lazy. Some 17 year old pot smokers are lazy just like some 17 year old non-pot smokers are lazy; and some 17 year old pot smokers are not lazy.
so, 50/50
-
Sure, some pot smokers are lazy just like some non-pot smokers are lazy. Some 17 year old pot smokers are lazy just like some 17 year old non-pot smokers are lazy; and some 17 year old pot smokers are not lazy.
so, 50/50
Not 50/50, WackySpracne.
-
I agree on lowering the drinking age. I'd take it all the way down to 16 or 17 to get kids some exposure to legal drinking prior to heading off to college. It seems to work most everywhere else in the world. But, I'd also raise the driving age to 20 (farm kids could still drive combines at 14 bc that's awesome). I would also raise the voting age to 30 unless you either (a) enlist in the military, or (b) own real property. I would also re-ban pot because, while there's always an exception that proves the rule, I've never met a frequent pot smoker who wasn't a lazy slob. I knew some pretty smart kids in high school that got heavy into weed. Things did not go so well after high school for them.
All of these changes would significantly improve our society and government.
JFC. Are you kidding me with this crap? It's not even worth my time to argue against your stupidity.
-
I'm more of a status quo guy. Unless I disagree with something, in which case I think we should look into changing it.
I feel the same way about taxes. I think some tax increases are ok, unless it affects me. Also, it's important to monitor our citizens in order to keep us all safe, as long as you stay out of my business, because I'm just a law-abiding citizen.
-
Sure, some pot smokers are lazy just like some non-pot smokers are lazy. Some 17 year old pot smokers are lazy just like some 17 year old non-pot smokers are lazy; and some 17 year old pot smokers are not lazy.
so, 50/50
CASE CLOSED!
-
Alcohol destroys far more lives and families than pot. Honestly it's rough ridin' ridiculous that binge drinking is socially acceptable but if you smoke a joint you're automatically labeled a loser.
It's because no one smokes joints anymore grandpa.
Joints and edibles are the way to go and I'm very good at making both. (#FanningBrag)
-
Alcohol destroys far more lives and families than pot. Honestly it's rough ridin' ridiculous that binge drinking is socially acceptable but if you smoke a joint you're automatically labeled a loser.
It's because no one smokes joints anymore grandpa.
Joints and edibles are the way to go and I'm very good at making both. (#FanningBrag)
whoa, dude. #vapelife
-
Alcohol destroys far more lives and families than pot. Honestly it's rough ridin' ridiculous that binge drinking is socially acceptable but if you smoke a joint you're automatically labeled a loser.
It's because no one smokes joints anymore grandpa.
Joints and edibles are the way to go and I'm very good at making both. (#FanningBrag)
Whatever criminal.
-
Alcohol destroys far more lives and families than pot. Honestly it's rough ridin' ridiculous that binge drinking is socially acceptable but if you smoke a joint you're automatically labeled a loser.
It's because no one smokes joints anymore grandpa.
Joints and edibles are the way to go and I'm very good at making both. (#FanningBrag)
whoa, dude. #vapelife
No-can-do-sville, team #buttbud
-
One time I smoked up w/ my brother (allegedly) in New Orleans. Afterwards we walked down bourbon st. and it was the most terrifying experience of my life. :ohno:
:lol:
-
How can you claim to be a small government conservative, and then want to increase the voting age to 30 and ban marijuana? I mean, those things seem kind of contradictory.
That's because you're a dumbass that doesn't understand the difference between "small government conservative" and a libertarian. And simply changing the voting age is not a matter if big or small government - it's just a change in law, though raising the voting age to 30 would result in a lot fewer young naive libtards from voting, resulting in a more conservative government.
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
-
How can you claim to be a small government conservative, and then want to increase the voting age to 30 and ban marijuana? I mean, those things seem kind of contradictory.
That's because you're a dumbass that doesn't understand the difference between "small government conservative" and a libertarian. And simply changing the voting age is not a matter if big or small government - it's just a change in law, though raising the voting age to 30 would result in a lot fewer young naive libtards from voting, resulting in a more conservative government.
I think we shouldn't let anyone over 70 vote since they're going to die soon anyway. Then that will result in a more liberal government.
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Denial of what?
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Other side effects include: Hungry, Happy, Sleepy
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Denial of what?
Exactly, Ell. Exactly. Think about it.
-
Holy crap, K-S-U Wildcats hates freedom.
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
-
50/50 :gocho:
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
I knew a priest that chieffed the occasional spliff.
-
I had absinthe when I was in spain several years ago, it def should be legal here.
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
Define "a bunch." I'd personally put the percentage of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot regularly at less than 20%.
-
This is quite the pickle.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Denial of what?
Exactly, Ell. Exactly. Think about it.
I'm willing to bet you've done 0 research on the subject. You're basing your opinion on your small little bubble of experiences with a handful of lazy stoners. You neglect to recognize the benefits and expand on bullshit refer madness talking points like every one who smokes pot is a worthless piece of crap. I'm just glad that you and dumbasses like yourself are now in the minority with your stupid rough ridin' opinions on this subject. It's going to be legalized everywhere soon enough so deal with it. Try doing some research yourself instead of listening to that fear mongering psychopath, Nancy Grace. Have a nice day and go eff yourself. :Flipped off x2:
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
Training Day was a documentary about this, correct?
-
Holy crap, K-S-U Wildcats hates freedom.
No, I generally like freedom, as long as it comes with accountability. I'd be more inclined to support pot legalization if I wasn't also being forced to pay for the healthcare and other entitlements for the growing number of lazy slobs that pot and other drug legalization will ultimately produce.
It's pretty simple, really. Freedom AND Accountability. Gotta have both.
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Denial of what?
Exactly, Ell. Exactly. Think about it.
I'm willing to bet you've done 0 research on the subject. You're basing your opinion on your small little bubble of experiences with a handful of lazy stoners. You neglect to recognize the benefits and expand on bullshit refer madness talking points like every one who smokes pot is a worthless piece of crap. I'm just glad that you and dumbasses like yourself are now in the minority with your stupid rough ridin' opinions on this subject. It's going to be legalized everywhere soon enough so deal with it. Try doing some research yourself instead of listening to that fear mongering psychopath, Nancy Grace. Have a nice day and go eff yourself. :Flipped off x2:
:ROFL:
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
A group of like minded students and I tried to push a law through the Kansas Legislature after 5 driving related deaths in our area in one year by young drivers. It unfortunately died in committee. I would be curious to see what the correlation in other nations between driving age and driving licensing are in order to determine if that is a worthwhile endeavor.
On the topic at hand. . .the article mentions how most countries in the world allow younger drinking. Is there any proof that younger drinking age leads to more drinking responsibility?
When was this? I closely monitor all public policy discussions regarding transportation in the state of Kansas, and I've never heard of that initiative from you and your fellow enterprising young scholars.
Way back in 2002. We made it to nationals in a community problem solving competition but failed to take the prize because it didn't make it to vote.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
I'd say the average cop has a lower moral threshold then the average perfectly functional professional.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
Training Day was a documentary about this, correct?
Confirmed. Also, plus that one movie with the cops and farva. Both true stories.
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
Define "a bunch." I'd personally put the percentage of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot regularly at less than 20%.
I am sure that it varies by profession/industry. I know in the world of construction, designers, and education (the three industries I know many ppl in) it is pretty prevalent.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
Training Day was a documentary about this, correct?
Confirmed. Also, plus that one movie with the cops and farva. Both true stories.
Super Troopers was also a great documentary.
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Denial of what?
Exactly, Ell. Exactly. Think about it.
I'm willing to bet you've done 0 research on the subject. You're basing your opinion on your small little bubble of experiences with a handful of lazy stoners. You neglect to recognize the benefits and expand on bullshit refer madness talking points like every one who smokes pot is a worthless piece of crap. I'm just glad that you and dumbasses like yourself are now in the minority with your stupid rough ridin' opinions on this subject. It's going to be legalized everywhere soon enough so deal with it. Try doing some research yourself instead of listening to that fear mongering psychopath, Nancy Grace. Have a nice day and go eff yourself. :Flipped off x2:
:thumbsup:
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
Define "a bunch." I'd personally put the percentage of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot regularly at less than 20%.
I am sure that it varies by profession/industry. I know in the world of construction, designers, and education (the three industries I know many ppl in) it is pretty prevalent.
Like more than 20% you think?
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
Define "a bunch." I'd personally put the percentage of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot regularly at less than 20%.
I am sure that it varies by profession/industry. I know in the world of construction, designers, and education (the three industries I know many ppl in) it is pretty prevalent.
Like more than 20% you think?
It might be as low as 20% in some professions where random drug testing is a concern.
-
If you don't know a bunch of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot, you either don't know many ppl closely at all, or work for a church or something.
The pot smokers are lazy talking point is about as accurate as saying that liberals are stupid or republicans are heartless.
Define "a bunch." I'd personally put the percentage of perfectly functional professionals that smoke pot regularly at less than 20%.
I am sure that it varies by profession/industry. I know in the world of construction, designers, and education (the three industries I know many ppl in) it is pretty prevalent.
Like more than 20% you think?
It depends on how often someone has to smoke it to be counted, but possibly, yes.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
Training Day was a documentary about this, correct?
Confirmed. Also, plus that one movie with the cops and farva. Both true stories.
Super Troopers was also a great documentary.
:thumbs: Thank you. That brain fart was driving me crazy.
-
I think it's fair to say that the effect of legalizing pot is not measurable at this point. With any substance that can change a mind state it takes experience and personal responsibility to use it. I know plenty of people that shouldn't be allowed to drink or smoke, but that is because they don't understand moderation. The simple fact that you can't overdose on THC by smoking marijuana already makes it safer than alcohol.
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
A group of like minded students and I tried to push a law through the Kansas Legislature after 5 driving related deaths in our area in one year by young drivers. It unfortunately died in committee. I would be curious to see what the correlation in other nations between driving age and driving licensing are in order to determine if that is a worthwhile endeavor.
On the topic at hand. . .the article mentions how most countries in the world allow younger drinking. Is there any proof that younger drinking age leads to more drinking responsibility?
When was this? I closely monitor all public policy discussions regarding transportation in the state of Kansas, and I've never heard of that initiative from you and your fellow enterprising young scholars.
Way back in 2002. We made it to nationals in a community problem solving competition but failed to take the prize because it didn't make it to vote.
That's fair. Can't really solve any problems in the community if a bill doesn't even make it out of committee. That's about as useful as pissing in a shoe.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
Training Day was a documentary about this, correct?
Confirmed. Also, plus that one movie with the cops and farva. Both true stories.
Super Troopers was also a great documentary.
:thumbs: Thank you. That brain fart was driving me crazy.
Could it be because you have been smoking pot recently?
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
-
What would you say the percentage of cops are that do it? One step further, what do you think the percentage of cops that do it off of product taken from citizens?
Training Day was a documentary about this, correct?
Confirmed. Also, plus that one movie with the cops and farva. Both true stories.
Super Troopers was also a great documentary.
:thumbs: Thank you. That brain fart was driving me crazy.
Could it be because you have been smoking pot recently?
More than likely. Did it for the first time last weekend in a very very long time. It was a blast. I had to have my gf drive me home from the bar. I had plans to grill out that night and it didn't turn out that well under the conditions. Everything has been a blur since. :ROFL:
-
How can you claim to be a small government conservative, and then want to increase the voting age to 30 and ban marijuana? I mean, those things seem kind of contradictory.
That's because you're a dumbass that doesn't understand the difference between "small government conservative" and a libertarian. And simply changing the voting age is not a matter if big or small government - it's just a change in law, though raising the voting age to 30 would result in a lot fewer young naive libtards from voting, resulting in a more conservative government.
I think we shouldn't let anyone over 70 vote since they're going to die soon anyway. Then that will result in a more liberal government.
We should at least stop giving them driver's licenses.
-
Holy crap, K-S-U Wildcats hates freedom.
No, I generally like freedom, as long as it comes with accountability. I'd be more inclined to support pot legalization if I wasn't also being forced to pay for the healthcare and other entitlements for the growing number of lazy slobs that pot and other drug legalization will ultimately produce.
It's pretty simple, really. Freedom AND Accountability. Gotta have both.
What in the eff are you talking about? What #'s do you have to back up this insane claim? I bet you feel really strong about banning McDonalds and cigarettes too then huh?
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
-
Holy crap, K-S-U Wildcats hates freedom.
No, I generally like freedom, as long as it comes with accountability. I'd be more inclined to support pot legalization if I wasn't also being forced to pay for the healthcare and other entitlements for the growing number of lazy slobs that pot and other drug legalization will ultimately produce.
It's pretty simple, really. Freedom AND Accountability. Gotta have both.
What in the eff are you talking about? What #'s do you have to back up this insane claim? I bet you feel really strong about banning McDonalds and cigarettes too then huh?
Actually, from the standpoint of an economist, lazy pot smokers should smoke a lot of cigarettes so that they die younger and thus consume less benefits as geriatrics.
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
-
I like the idea that you can't vote until you are an independent and paying your own taxes. This seems like the most appropriate time to start being involved in government.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
-
How can you claim to be a small government conservative, and then want to increase the voting age to 30 and ban marijuana? I mean, those things seem kind of contradictory.
That's because you're a dumbass that doesn't understand the difference between "small government conservative" and a libertarian. And simply changing the voting age is not a matter if big or small government - it's just a change in law, though raising the voting age to 30 would result in a lot fewer young naive libtards from voting, resulting in a more conservative government.
Let's break this down:
1. Increasing voting age to 30:
-Government would be required to increase federal voting regulations, which would lead to less people having the freedom to vote, as well as increased costs associated with enforcement and legal challenges.
-Conclusion: this would increase government regulations and restrictions, therefore it contradicts your libertarian/small government charade.
2. Banning marijuana:
-States and federal government would be required to increase regulations and enforcements of marijuana laws, which would have several negative consequences, including reduced tax revenue in states where recreational use is currently legalized. Our overcrowded prison system would become even more overcrowded with the massive increase in non-violent criminals, which would increase the tax burden on local taxpayers and needlessly imprison a significant portion of the population.
-Conclusion: this would increase government regulations and restrictions, and put many non-violent criminals in jail, therefore contradicting your libertarian/small government charade.
Overall conclusion:
K-S-U is a total right wing hack.
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
Are you suggesting they hide it?
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
Are you suggesting they hide it?
It's not like your buddies come to work and brag they had one beer last night.
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
Are you suggesting they hide it?
Maybe they just aren't announcing it? I mean, how would you know unless you are secretly collecting urine from the urinals and testing it? Are you doing that?
-
i'm pretty sure my sister doesn't sit in the teacher's lounge and talk about how she smoked pot and played with the kids in the backyard yesterday before dinner :dunno:
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
Are you suggesting they hide it?
It's not like your buddies come to work and brag they had one beer last night.
Some people say they smoke. Are they bragging? Lying? :dunno:
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
Are you suggesting they hide it?
Possibly, in fear of being looked down upon and judged by the adulterers and alcoholics of the office.
-
I would say someone is a pot smoker if they buy it themselves for personal consumption on a regular basis. I guarantee it's lower than 20% among the people I work with and know well enough to know if they do or not.
well given that like 6% of the general population self-identify as habitual smokers on the annual health & human services survey, you've got some wiggle room to sniff these guys out
I'd be okay with saying 6% of my colleagues smoke regularly. There might be a few I don't know about, but I know about affairs, alcoholism, and other illicit activities, so I'm not sure why pot would escape me.
Probably because it's not a topic of gossip. I'm sure they just go home, occasionally smoke a little weed and come to work the next day.
Are you suggesting they hide it?
Maybe they just aren't announcing it? I mean, how would you know unless you are secretly collecting urine from the urinals and testing it? Are you doing that?
How would you know unless you are secretly collecting urine from the urinals and testing it? Are you doing that?
-
those aren't cakes in the urinals...they're cup-cakes :sdeek:
-
Judging from the turn this thread took, I think I've discovered another unfortunate side effect of frequent pot use: boatloads of denial.
Other side effects include: Hungry, Happy, Sleepy
That's all!
-
If anything this thread has taught me that potheads are unconfident losers. :D
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
-
Fanning weed stories always make me laugh my ass off because he makes it sound like he took mushrooms or something
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
Can't tell if serious. :dubious:
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
How 'bout this, if you pay a net positive in federal income taxes and social security, you can vote, no matter your citizenship status or age. By net positive I mean you and your employer have paid the US government more on your behalf than you and your dependents have received in direct subsidies and tax credits (not income deductions). Every July you get a voter ID card from the treasury department. When you reach retirement age, you can automatically vote.
No, you can't monetize infrastructure use, everyone uses that for free.
-
Fanning weed stories always make me laugh my ass off because he makes it sound like he took mushrooms or something
Smoking with the Fanman is on my bucket list. What a great night in the ville that would be.
-
that would be adorable and i would buy the dvd
-
we've seriously got people in this thread attempting to design a modern day poll tax. wtf?
-
Would be fantastic
-
If anything this thread has taught me that potheads are unconfident losers. :D
The guy who wants to go back to pre-Civil War era voting laws is calling potheads "unconfident losers."
:love:
-
Fanning weed stories always make me laugh my ass off because he makes it sound like he took mushrooms or something
Smoking with the Fanman is on my bucket list. What a great night in the ville that would be.
I can dig it. :) Can you dig it? That's what happens when you smoke like 2 or 3 times a year. It becomes a magical journey.
-
Fanning weed stories always make me laugh my ass off because he makes it sound like he took mushrooms or something
Smoking with the Fanman is on my bucket list. What a great night in the ville that would be.
I can dig it. :) Can you dig it? That's what happens when you smoke like 2 or 3 times a year. It becomes a magical journey.
Fanman is gonna join the jazz band!
-
we've seriously got people in this thread attempting to design a modern day poll tax. wtf?
drugs.
-
We should auction off a jazz band smoke sesh experience with myself and certain other gE elites at Fatty Fest.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
How 'bout this, if you pay a net positive in federal income taxes and social security, you can vote, no matter your citizenship status or age. By net positive I mean you and your employer have paid the US government more on your behalf than you and your dependents have received in direct subsidies and tax credits (not income deductions). Every July you get a voter ID card from the treasury department. When you reach retirement age, you can automatically vote.
No, you can't monetize infrastructure use, everyone uses that for free.
Why do you want the retirees voting? They are lazy, unmotivated leeches who pay in nothing.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
Can't tell if serious. :dubious:
You understand that your taxes don't all go to the same place, right? Why would property ownership have anything at all to do with voting for federal offices?
-
we've seriously got people in this thread attempting to design a modern day poll tax. wtf?
drugs.
take one too many bong rips and you completely forget high school civics.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
Can't tell if serious. :dubious:
You understand that your taxes don't all go to the same place, right? Why would property ownership have anything at all to do with voting for federal offices?
You understand that the deduction isn't for ownership, but for interest paid on the note, right?
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
How 'bout this, if you pay a net positive in federal income taxes and social security, you can vote, no matter your citizenship status or age. By net positive I mean you and your employer have paid the US government more on your behalf than you and your dependents have received in direct subsidies and tax credits (not income deductions). Every July you get a voter ID card from the treasury department. When you reach retirement age, you can automatically vote.
No, you can't monetize infrastructure use, everyone uses that for free.
Why do you want the retirees voting? They are lazy, unmotivated leeches who pay in nothing.
Because they have so much WISDOM! :Yoda:
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
How 'bout this, if you pay a net positive in federal income taxes and social security, you can vote, no matter your citizenship status or age. By net positive I mean you and your employer have paid the US government more on your behalf than you and your dependents have received in direct subsidies and tax credits (not income deductions). Every July you get a voter ID card from the treasury department. When you reach retirement age, you can automatically vote.
No, you can't monetize infrastructure use, everyone uses that for free.
Why do you want the retirees voting? They are lazy, unmotivated leeches who pay in nothing.
Maybe, but they're experienced at it so that's a net positive.
Seems we have a lot of net negatives here. :surprised:
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
Can't tell if serious. :dubious:
You understand that your taxes don't all go to the same place, right? Why would property ownership have anything at all to do with voting for federal offices?
You understand that the deduction isn't for ownership, but for interest paid on the note, right?
Well, yeah. I was just generally speaking. In no case does somebody pay more taxes for owning a home. In most cases, they actually pay less.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
Can't tell if serious. :dubious:
You understand that your taxes don't all go to the same place, right? Why would property ownership have anything at all to do with voting for federal offices?
You understand that the deduction isn't for ownership, but for interest paid on the note, right?
Well, yeah. I was just generally speaking. In no case does somebody pay more taxes for owning a home. In most cases, they actually pay less.
I don't really care about more or less, I just care about some. Pay some = vote. Pay none = no vote.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
You're right. We'd better lower the voting age to 14.
The thing the libtards can't seem to grasp is that there's nothing sacred or empirically superior to voting at 18, versus 21 (the way it was until 1971) or any other age or non-discriminatory standard. The hysteria over "poll tax" and slavery is pretty :lol:.
It was a good idea, for example, to drop the voting age to 18 back when pretty much any eligible male was subject to the draft. We don't really have that in practice today, but it still makes perfect sense to allow people who enlist to possibly die for their country to vote. That same logic doesn't apply to the lazy (pot smoking) eternal adolescent playing video games in mom and dad's basement.
Democracy fails when a majority of the voting populous figures out (with the help of a certain political party) that it can vote itself largess from the treasury. The best way to fix this is to restrict voting to those who, as our current president is fond of saying but doesn't actually believe, have some "skin in the game" and have a certain level of experience in the real world. There's no perfect test for that, and some perfectly responsible people might be disenfranchised by any test, just as our current test likely disenfranchises some perfectly responsible people younger than 18. But in theory, you ought not be voting if you're taking from the government more than you've paid in. Politically and realistically this is impossible, but I thought we were talking wish list stuff.
-
sounds like you'd prefer an aristocracy.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
You get a deduction for owning property, though. That means you pay less, not more.
Can't tell if serious. :dubious:
You understand that your taxes don't all go to the same place, right? Why would property ownership have anything at all to do with voting for federal offices?
You understand that the deduction isn't for ownership, but for interest paid on the note, right?
Well, yeah. I was just generally speaking. In no case does somebody pay more taxes for owning a home. In most cases, they actually pay less.
Depends on where you live. Property taxes can be a killer.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
You're right. We'd better lower the voting age to 14.
The thing the libtards can't seem to grasp is that there's nothing sacred or empirically superior to voting at 18, versus 21 (the way it was until 1971) or any other age or non-discriminatory standard. The hysteria over "poll tax" and slavery is pretty :lol:.
It was a good idea, for example, to drop the voting age to 18 back when pretty much any eligible male was subject to the draft. We don't really have that in practice today, but it still makes perfect sense to allow people who enlist to possibly die for their country to vote. That same logic doesn't apply to the lazy (pot smoking) eternal adolescent playing video games in mom and dad's basement.
Democracy fails when a majority of the voting populous figures out (with the help of a certain political party) that it can vote itself largess from the treasury. The best way to fix this is to restrict voting to those who, as our current president is fond of saying but doesn't actually believe, have some "skin in the game" and have a certain level of experience in the real world. There's no perfect test for that, and some perfectly responsible people might be disenfranchised by any test, just as our current test likely disenfranchises some perfectly responsible people younger than 18. But in theory, you ought not be voting if you're taking from the government more than you've paid in. Politically and realistically this is impossible, but I thought we were talking wish list stuff.
18 year olds aren't subject to a potential draft anymore? News to me.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
Those people could vote then. :D
Obviously I"m not going to stipulate every little nuance of how I think it should work, I haven't even thought about it that much. I just believe in the theme that a vote should be valued and earned. Deadbeats who contribute absolutely nothing to society shouldn't be automatically awarded something valuable like a vote. What's the percentage of the population that fits that description? Probably very very very small. Would the effort needed to make this change be worth any potential or perceived gains? Probably not. But it's just an idea, man. :D Honestly I think our entire tax code needs reform. #nomoreobfuscation
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
Those people could vote then. :D
Obviously I"m not going to stipulate every little nuance of how I think it should work, I haven't even thought about it that much. I just believe in the theme that a vote should be valued and earned. Deadbeats who contribute absolutely nothing to society shouldn't be automatically awarded something valuable like a vote. What's the percentage of the population that fits that description? Probably very very very small. Would the effort needed to make this change be worth any potential or perceived gains? Probably not. But it's just an idea, man. :D Honestly I think our entire tax code needs reform. #nomoreobfuscation
What percentage of the population that fits that description actually takes the time to vote in your estimation? It's well under 20% in my experience.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
How 'bout this, if you pay a net positive in federal income taxes and social security, you can vote, no matter your citizenship status or age. By net positive I mean you and your employer have paid the US government more on your behalf than you and your dependents have received in direct subsidies and tax credits (not income deductions). Every July you get a voter ID card from the treasury department. When you reach retirement age, you can automatically vote.
No, you can't monetize infrastructure use, everyone uses that for free.
Why do you want the retirees voting? They are lazy, unmotivated leeches who pay in nothing.
Because they have so much WISDOM! :Yoda:
Wisdom's a gift, but I'd trade it for youth. Age is an honour; it's still not the truth.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
You're right. We'd better lower the voting age to 14.
The thing the libtards can't seem to grasp is that there's nothing sacred or empirically superior to voting at 18, versus 21 (the way it was until 1971) or any other age or non-discriminatory standard. The hysteria over "poll tax" and slavery is pretty :lol:.
It was a good idea, for example, to drop the voting age to 18 back when pretty much any eligible male was subject to the draft. We don't really have that in practice today, but it still makes perfect sense to allow people who enlist to possibly die for their country to vote. That same logic doesn't apply to the lazy (pot smoking) eternal adolescent playing video games in mom and dad's basement.
Democracy fails when a majority of the voting populous figures out (with the help of a certain political party) that it can vote itself largess from the treasury. The best way to fix this is to restrict voting to those who, as our current president is fond of saying but doesn't actually believe, have some "skin in the game" and have a certain level of experience in the real world. There's no perfect test for that, and some perfectly responsible people might be disenfranchised by any test, just as our current test likely disenfranchises some perfectly responsible people younger than 18. But in theory, you ought not be voting if you're taking from the government more than you've paid in. Politically and realistically this is impossible, but I thought we were talking wish list stuff.
18 year olds aren't subject to a potential draft anymore? News to me.
Males still have to register for selective service in order to vote. The draft doesn't not exist anymore, it's just not used.
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
Those people could vote then. :D
Obviously I"m not going to stipulate every little nuance of how I think it should work, I haven't even thought about it that much. I just believe in the theme that a vote should be valued and earned. Deadbeats who contribute absolutely nothing to society shouldn't be automatically awarded something valuable like a vote. What's the percentage of the population that fits that description? Probably very very very small. Would the effort needed to make this change be worth any potential or perceived gains? Probably not. But it's just an idea, man. :D Honestly I think our entire tax code needs reform. #nomoreobfuscation
What percentage of the population that fits that description actually takes the time to vote in your estimation? It's well under 20% in my experience.
No idea. I don't commune with those losers. :D
-
we've seriously got people in this thread attempting to design a modern day poll tax. wtf?
drugs.
take one too many bong rips and you completely forget high school civics.
I remember at least one lesson in civics class even after several bong rips.
When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic
We're already there. Trying to save you morons from yourselves.
-
Soon they will be taxing the very air we breathe, so this hole debate is pointless. Time to put this shameful bickering by the wayside, guys. Don't worry about the R's and the D's. Worry about the U's and the Me's.
-
Soon they will be taxing the very air we breathe, so this hole debate is pointless. Time to put this shameful bickering by the wayside, guys. Don't worry about the R's and the D's. Worry about the U's and the Me's.
...and Randy's
-
Did he seriously suggest a qualifier for voting that involves owning property? Hey, the 18th century called... Do my two slaves count as owning property?
I would support it. :dunno: Hell, I'd even stipulate that you have to have paid taxes to get a vote.
Anyone who has purchased a good or service has paid taxes. What is your rationale for disenfranchisement?
You're right. We'd better lower the voting age to 14.
The thing the libtards can't seem to grasp is that there's nothing sacred or empirically superior to voting at 18, versus 21 (the way it was until 1971) or any other age or non-discriminatory standard. The hysteria over "poll tax" and slavery is pretty :lol:.
It was a good idea, for example, to drop the voting age to 18 back when pretty much any eligible male was subject to the draft. We don't really have that in practice today, but it still makes perfect sense to allow people who enlist to possibly die for their country to vote. That same logic doesn't apply to the lazy (pot smoking) eternal adolescent playing video games in mom and dad's basement.
Democracy fails when a majority of the voting populous figures out (with the help of a certain political party) that it can vote itself largess from the treasury. The best way to fix this is to restrict voting to those who, as our current president is fond of saying but doesn't actually believe, have some "skin in the game" and have a certain level of experience in the real world. There's no perfect test for that, and some perfectly responsible people might be disenfranchised by any test, just as our current test likely disenfranchises some perfectly responsible people younger than 18. But in theory, you ought not be voting if you're taking from the government more than you've paid in. Politically and realistically this is impossible, but I thought we were talking wish list stuff.
18 year olds aren't subject to a potential draft anymore? News to me.
Males still have to register for selective service in order to vote. The draft doesn't not exist anymore, it's just not used.
That's why I used the word "really." I know we still require registration for selective service, but out last and only draft in modern history was over 40 years ago.
-
Did freedom have sex with ksu's wife? He really hates the crap out of freedom, jeez
-
Back on topic: we need to lower the drinking age, cuz Europe...
-
If we are going to have an arbitrary non 18 age, it should be 19
-
If we are going to have an arbitrary non 18 age, it should be 19
Great idea. Even better, make it 1 year removed from high school. #OneAndDrunk.
-
Is enjoying decent weed on the reg more costly than somone who drinks several quality beers every night?
-
Is enjoying decent weed on the reg more costly than somone who drinks several quality beers every night?
Not even close
-
Is enjoying decent weed on the reg more costly than somone who drinks several quality beers every night?
Not even close
So it's far more affordable to smoke?
-
I would say so. $50 in alcohol is a weekend or two, $50 in weed will last much longer
-
Is enjoying decent weed on the reg more costly than somone who drinks several quality beers every night?
Not even close
So it's far more affordable to smoke?
No doubt about it.
-
And no hangover when smoking. Also a hangover cure.
-
And no hangover when smoking. Also a hangover cure.
Plus prolonged alcohol use can be tough on the old ticker...
-
I can't think of one 18 year old that I would want drinking (legally). Awful idea.
You must be asexual then
-
Before I was 21 I was all about lowering the drinking age, once I turned 21 I stopped caring about it.
Also I know tons of "young professionals" that enjoy herbal supplements. Most are productive members of society.
-
And no hangover when smoking. Also a hangover cure.
Plus prolonged alcohol use can be tough on the old ticker...
People that think weed is not bad for you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That's a lot of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) people in this thread.
-
And no hangover when smoking. Also a hangover cure.
Plus prolonged alcohol use can be tough on the old ticker...
People that think weed is not bad for you are Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That's a lot of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) people in this thread.
Did you even read this thread?
-
I'm 60% confident he posted in the right thread
-
I'm 60% confident he posted in the right thread
Probably looking for the say something controversial thread? :dunno:
-
Is this what you people do in here all day?
-
Plus prolonged alcohol use can be tough on the old ticker...
somebody is jelly they have never had a good night out
-
Is this what you people do in here all day?
Not all day. Don't be silly.
-
I would say so. $50 in alcohol is a weekend or two, $50 in weed will last much longer
this doesn't seem accurate to me (the alcohol part). i think you're taking the cost of alcohol when served in a bar. in which case you are mostly paying for labor, use of property, etc. i could kill myself with eminently drinkable wine for $50 per weekend if drunk in my own house.
i'd like to hear more details on the cost of marijuana.
-
I would say so. $50 in alcohol is a weekend or two, $50 in weed will last much longer
this doesn't seem accurate to me (the alcohol part). i think you're taking the cost of alcohol when served in a bar. in which case you are mostly paying for labor, use of property, etc. i could kill myself with eminently drinkable wine for $50 per weekend if drunk in my own house.
i'd like to hear more details on the cost of marijuana.
This guy I know smokes on occasion. Apparently it's not like an everyday thing, but will sometimes take a hit or two, literally just one or two, on average about once a week when he's chilling, maybe watching a movie. He says it helps him relax and also helps him to sleep like a baby. Anyway, this guy says he spent $50 on 1/8 oz. about a year ago and he still has well over half left. He tells me he keeps it in his freezer. I don't know, is he a drug abuser or what? I've been thinking about ending our friendship over it.
-
Fiscally responsible. Sounds like a right winger.
-
This guy also tells me that the cost of using "weed" is extremely low if you are the only person consuming it, rather than using it as a party favor for other drug users to abuse.
-
this guy says he spent $50 on 1/8 oz. about a year ago and he still has well over half left. He tells me he keeps it in his freezer. I don't know, is he a drug abuser or what? I've been thinking about ending our friendship over it.
that can't possibly be accurate. an eighth of an ounce? that's like 3 or 4 grams. that's nothing. are you smoking like a tweezerful at a time?
-
this guy says he spent $50 on 1/8 oz. about a year ago and he still has well over half left. He tells me he keeps it in his freezer. I don't know, is he a drug abuser or what? I've been thinking about ending our friendship over it.
that can't possibly be accurate. an eighth of an ounce? that's like 3 or 4 grams. that's nothing. are you smoking like a tweezerful at a time?
Can you smoke with a tweezers? Idk, I'll ask him and let u know.
-
google thinks that an average marijuana cigarette contains about 0.5 grams. so if spracne's price is correct, that's about $7 per smoke. presumably the user smokes one per use. coincidentally, the wine i usually buy is also about $7/bottle. but i almost never drink a bottle per night.
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
-
but i almost never drink a bottle per night.
:dubious:
-
google thinks that an average marijuana cigarette contains about 0.5 grams. so if spracne's price is correct, that's about $7 per smoke. presumably the user smokes one per use. coincidentally, the wine i usually buy is also about $7/bottle. but i almost never drink a bottle per night.
He estimates that it's about $0.30 per "toke," and if he smokes infrequently, one or two "tokes" is sufficient to catch a comfortable buzz. So for him, I guess that equates to $0.60 - $1.20 a week. :dunno:
-
Also, he says that joints are overkill for personal use, assuming the user isn't of the daily variety and that he isn't trying to get really, Really high.
-
Also, it's important to get a quality strain, apparently.
-
so you take a drag, then put it out and freeze it for future use? weirdo.
-
so you take a drag, then put it out and freeze it for future use? weirdo.
I don't know, man. You want his AIM handle so you can ask him yourself? I barely know this guy.
-
You really know that little about marijuana and how it is used, Sys?
-
You really know that little about marijuana and how it is used, Sys?
yes?
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
Tweezers is what a square calls roach clips. I'd also be surprised if weed bought at $50 an 1/8 was worth a crap.
Also, nobody takes a hit or two and then puts their joint away, nobody. I'm pretty sure the person Spracne is describing is Christian Bale's character from American Psycho.
-
I bet sys' search history is adorable.
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
Tweezers is what a square calls roach clips. I'd also be surprised if weed bought at $50 an 1/8 was worth a crap.
Also, nobody takes a hit or two and then puts their joint away, nobody. I'm pretty sure the person Spracne is describing is Christian Bale's character from American Psycho.
This
-
if you're paying more than $50-$60 an 1/8th, you're more than likely getting ripped off. there are other ways to smoke than a joint.
-
Well, we've identified at least one person who smokes schwag out of a gravity bong. I call dibs on partying with Metalhead!
-
Well, we've identified at least one person who smokes schwag out of a gravity bong. I call dibs on partying with Metalhead!
i don't smoke schwag, i don't own a bong and i don't think that we would enjoy each other's company, FSD.
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
I don't know. I can't wait to start snorting alcohol, though.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/palcohol-powdered-alcohol-may-present-serious-health-risks/
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
drugs :runaway:
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
Marijuana is not an opiate. And I don't think you want to claim that you were using the Marxian phrase, which actually refers to religion.
-
60 is fair market value for a quality eighth (3.5 grams) of good weed in this area. 50 if you know people. Free if you sell a little bit. Or you can get paid to smoke if you sell a little bit more. If you're taking a couple of hits a day then it's going to last you about a month. A bowl a day, roughly 2 weeks.
-
We should auction off a jazz band smoke sesh experience with myself and certain other gE elites at Fatty Fest.
Should have auctioned the HCl sesh last year at FF2
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
I don't know. I can't wait to start snorting alcohol, though.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/palcohol-powdered-alcohol-may-present-serious-health-risks/
Pro-tip: it doesn't need to be powdered
-
Apparently the kids these days are bonging vodka into their buttholes, which gives them a deeper/quicker/cheaper drunk. So sys needs to consider the incremental difference between the most economically ways to enjoy each.
-
Apparently the kids these days are bonging vodka into their buttholes, which gives them a deeper/quicker/cheaper drunk. So sys needs to consider the incremental difference between the most economically ways to enjoy each.
My buddy is a promoter for mccormick. It's awesome, cause when we go to games, he hands us a bunch of plastic pouches to sneak in with and mix with pop. However, this one time, a dude put the pouches in his underwear. One of the pouches was torn and it leaked into his dingle ling. I'm not joking when I say I've never seen someone so mumped up. He had to be rushed to the emergency room cause of alcohol poisioning. He doesn't remember a thing.
-
Apparently the kids these days are bonging vodka into their buttholes, which gives them a deeper/quicker/cheaper drunk. So sys needs to consider the incremental difference between the most economically ways to enjoy each.
My buddy is a promoter for mccormick. It's awesome, cause when we go to games, he hands us a bunch of plastic pouches to sneak in with and mix with pop. However, this one time, a dude put the pouches in his underwear. One of the pouches was torn and it leaked into his dingle ling. I'm not joking when I say I've never seen someone so mumped up. He had to be rushed to the emergency room cause of alcohol poisioning. He doesn't remember a thing.
Whiskey dick?
-
Thanks for the backup there Wacks. :thumbs:
-
:Lurk:
-
Apparently the kids these days are bonging vodka into their buttholes, which gives them a deeper/quicker/cheaper drunk. So sys needs to consider the incremental difference between the most economically ways to enjoy each.
My buddy is a promoter for mccormick. It's awesome, cause when we go to games, he hands us a bunch of plastic pouches to sneak in with and mix with pop. However, this one time, a dude put the pouches in his underwear. One of the pouches was torn and it leaked into his dingle ling. I'm not joking when I say I've never seen someone so mumped up. He had to be rushed to the emergency room cause of alcohol poisioning. He doesn't remember a thing.
:lol: no rough ridin' way
-
:)
-
Apparently the kids these days are bonging vodka into their buttholes, which gives them a deeper/quicker/cheaper drunk. So sys needs to consider the incremental difference between the most economically ways to enjoy each.
My buddy is a promoter for mccormick. It's awesome, cause when we go to games, he hands us a bunch of plastic pouches to sneak in with and mix with pop. However, this one time, a dude put the pouches in his underwear. One of the pouches was torn and it leaked into his dingle ling. I'm not joking when I say I've never seen someone so mumped up. He had to be rushed to the emergency room cause of alcohol poisioning. He doesn't remember a thing.
:lol: no rough ridin' way
McCormick needs to make bottles with bigger mouths and market that.
-
He's pushing their new whiskey called "Triple Crown". It's half the price of crown royal and just as smooth. I helped him get it into the quaff last week. :gocho:
-
He's pushing their new whiskey called "Triple Crown". It's half the price of crown royal and just as smooth. I helped him get it into the quaff last week. :gocho:
Can you dick soak it?
-
He's pushing their new whiskey called "Triple Crown". It's half the price of crown royal and just as smooth. I helped him get it into the quaff last week. :gocho:
Can you dick soak it?
Oh yeah. It's great for dick soaking. You'll be blacked out in 15 minutes tho. Good thing about that tho, is when you piss yourself from the black out, ppl just think you were dick soaking the product. :cheers: <---- (but dick soaking triple crown)
-
welp, get yer dicks out, fellahs.
-
New candy idea: Dippin' Dicks
-
I'm a bit skeptical of your method, wacky. I think the result would be immense pain not followed by stupor. I know this because I once spilled a bottle of mouthwash and some of it got in my peehole.
-
New bar idea: Drinkin' Dicks
-
:lol:
-
never going to Fat's again
-
Everyone order a moscow for your mule at station this weekend
-
Everyone order a moscow for your mule at station this weekend
everybody's hog is going to be hammered.
-
what is going on in here :runaway:
-
Scrotum absorbs chemicals very fast. Wash your hands with soap and water after using pesticides and before going to the bathroom. :Lawn Care related:
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
Tweezers is what a square calls roach clips. I'd also be surprised if weed bought at $50 an 1/8 was worth a crap.
Also, nobody takes a hit or two and then puts their joint away, nobody. I'm pretty sure the person Spracne is describing is Christian Bale's character from American Psycho.
This
Lots of people use one-hitter pipes for quality weed. And if you use it occasionally you honestly only need a hit or two.
Now, back to fanning's lie.
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
I don't know. I can't wait to start snorting alcohol, though.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/palcohol-powdered-alcohol-may-present-serious-health-risks/
Pro-tip: it doesn't need to be powdered
:Yuck: :Yuck: :Yuck:
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
I don't know. I can't wait to start snorting alcohol, though.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/palcohol-powdered-alcohol-may-present-serious-health-risks/
Pro-tip: it doesn't need to be powdered
:Yuck: :Yuck: :Yuck:
Yeah, liquid and lungs don't mix well.
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
Tweezers is what a square calls roach clips. I'd also be surprised if weed bought at $50 an 1/8 was worth a crap.
Also, nobody takes a hit or two and then puts their joint away, nobody. I'm pretty sure the person Spracne is describing is Christian Bale's character from American Psycho.
This
Lots of people use one-hitter pipes for quality weed. And if you use it occasionally you honestly only need a hit or two.
Now, back to fanning's lie.
This guy knows what he's talking about.
-
So much LWIQ in this thread
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
Tweezers is what a square calls roach clips. I'd also be surprised if weed bought at $50 an 1/8 was worth a crap.
Also, nobody takes a hit or two and then puts their joint away, nobody. I'm pretty sure the person Spracne is describing is Christian Bale's character from American Psycho.
This
Lots of people use one-hitter pipes for quality weed. And if you use it occasionally you honestly only need a hit or two.
Now, back to fanning's lie.
nope :block:
-
I don't believe you, at all.
-
I don't believe you, at all.
That's fine. I really don't care.
-
You should care about being trustworthy, wacky.
-
You should care about being trustworthy, wacky.
I care very little of what you think or believe. No offense.
-
I influence opinion
-
I share stories and entertain (to some).
-
Can you smoke with a tweezers?
very sophisticated way to smoke.
Tweezers is what a square calls roach clips. I'd also be surprised if weed bought at $50 an 1/8 was worth a crap.
Also, nobody takes a hit or two and then puts their joint away, nobody. I'm pretty sure the person Spracne is describing is Christian Bale's character from American Psycho.
It's a lot less expensive on the West coast and in Colorado. Supply and demand, bruh.
-
Oh, it was a very entertaining story.
-
If drinkin' dicks was a real thing, there's no way people would ever go the alcohol enema route. It was a hilarious story, though.
-
I'm telling you, it is an awful, painful experience. Dude probably just got alcohol poisoning the good ole' fashion way AND happened to get some vodka in his pee-pee.
-
I'm telling you, it is an awful, painful experience. Dude probably just got alcohol poisoning the good ole' fashion way AND happened to get some vodka in his pee-pee.
More than likely. Ppl were claiming he hadn't been drinking much previous to that, but i'm open to the idea he was slippin drinks and was/is probably a light weight. It was funny to see the alcohol bursting through his pants. :lol:
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
Does no one here smoke hash? That is the best value for a Baller on a Budget.
-
I will create your blog for you if you promise to update it.
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
Does no one here smoke hash? That is the best value for a Baller on a Budget.
Depends how you look at it and how much hash you can handle. Sure it takes very little to get you HAF but it's not very convenient to smoke unless you have a vape pen. It's also harder to get than green (in KS) and it can be dangerous to make. It's roughly 2-3 times more expensive per gram than weed but THC levels, if made right, are like 4 times that of green.
-
Is there a way to inject the THC straight into a vein, or maybe snort it, or an enema? I don't think this drug use thread is disgusting enough yet. But, fortunately, states are legalizing another opiate for the masses. Yay! :Woohoo:
Does no one here smoke hash? That is the best value for a Baller on a Budget.
Depends how you look at it and how much hash you can handle. Sure it takes very little to get you HAF but it's not very convenient to smoke unless you have a vape pen. It's also harder to get than green (in KS) and it can be dangerous to make. It's roughly 2-3 times more expensive per gram than weed but THC levels, if made right, are like 4 times that of green.
When I spent my semester in Florence we would people I knew would take a gravity bong hit from a liter bottle. Guaranteed to be HAF for 3 hours+ and it was a very small amount. It was impossible to find green there, hash was everywhere.
-
I will create your blog for you if you promise to update it.
What kind of commitment are we talking here?
-
60 is fair market value for a quality eighth (3.5 grams) of good weed in this area. 50 if you know people. Free if you sell a little bit. Or you can get paid to smoke if you sell a little bit more. If you're taking a couple of hits a day then it's going to last you about a month. A bowl a day, roughly 2 weeks.
thanks, ell. good info. so $50 every 2 weeks for regular users, $50 a month for light users. that's about the same as alcohol assuming it was consumed in same way (at home).
does anyone know if legal, retailed and taxed marijuana is selling for the same price as illegal black market marijuana? are marijuana cafes legal in the legalized states, or is it all buy and use in private?
-
Apparently the kids these days are bonging vodka into their buttholes, which gives them a deeper/quicker/cheaper drunk. So sys needs to consider the incremental difference between the most economically ways to enjoy each.
i'm assuming an equivalent experience. people choosing to consume in ways that are enjoyable and consistent with the appropriate rituals and traditions. someone could certainly buy 95% etoh, mix with h2o and get ridic drunk for pennies. but no one is doing that. i don't know if there is a marijuana equivalent, but there's prolly something.
it's a lot easier and cheaper to grow your own marijuana than to ferment your own alcohol, though. that's a relevant difference.
-
An 1/8th will last me 2 to 3 months, sys, with an average of smoking around 3 times a week.
Legal prices are pretty comparable. prices are fluid obviously, but back in January I got two 1/16ths of "top shelf" quality for $55 total, taxes included. Erii can maybe give you a more recent number.
As far as smoking in public legally, that's a problem they are attempting to solve right now. I believe a few counties have authorized smoking patios at bars, not sure if this has made it to denver yet.
-
Recreational 1/8th's vary anywhere from $50-65 +tax. At one of the stores we went to last week I got a sativa dominant strain called Golden Goat* and it was $60 plus around $15 in tax. Not sure of the exact amount since I bought other things and it's cash only and I didn't get a receipt.
*Fun fact: that strain was created by accident from cross pollination in Topeka!
-
Recreational 1/8th's vary anywhere from $50-65 +tax. At one of the stores we went to last week I got a sativa dominant strain called Golden Goat* and it was $60 plus around $15 in tax. Not sure of the exact amount since I bought other things and it's cash only and I didn't get a receipt.
*Fun fact: that strain was created by accident from cross pollination in Topeka!
Do you know if they have any thc pills by chance?
-
Recreational 1/8th's vary anywhere from $50-65 +tax. At one of the stores we went to last week I got a sativa dominant strain called Golden Goat* and it was $60 plus around $15 in tax. Not sure of the exact amount since I bought other things and it's cash only and I didn't get a receipt.
*Fun fact: that strain was created by accident from cross pollination in Topeka!
Do you know if they have any thc pills by chance?
I highly doubt those are available for recreational use. I would imagine those are medicinal only.
-
Dam.
Any oils? Drinks
-
What kind of example are we setting for the Youth of America in here? Just askin'... ;)
-
If I could get ahold of some THC in pill form that'd be fantastic because then I could put it on a little tea biscuit and pretend it's a marshmallow.
-
What kind of example are we setting for the Youth of America in here? Just askin'... ;)
That like tobacco smoking and alcohol consumption responsible adults can enjoy the effects of THC as well. :dunno:
-
could you get aids from whiskey dicking out of the same vessel as an infected person?
-
could you get aids from whiskey dicking out of the same vessel as an infected person?
turns out this is a truly ancient practice. Here is a clay vessel from the early assyrian era, carefully crafted to provide full immersion to the beef and satch.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpartyhireauckland.co.nz%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FGRAVY-BOAT-BASE_lg.jpg&hash=edc75a5d210e1dccf89cc881c3ecf8f1029f040d)
-
could you get aids from whiskey dicking out of the same vessel as an infected person?
i'm not willing to find out
never going to Fat's again
-
could you get aids from whiskey dicking out of the same vessel as an infected person?
i'm not willing to find out
never going to Fat's again
the alcohol would not only kill the virus but probably cure the person who originally soaked. Medical Soaking is born.
-
wait, did we just cure aids?
-
:cheers:
-
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsistatv.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2Ftumblrm6rel5dhm81qcqqpj.gif&hash=a73e304f1ba20caa95b4effd2d5d7c87366e4836)
-
Yep and only a month or two after Egypt. We are going to need to change the date on this thread if gE has any hope of getting the Nobel this year.
-
:emawkid:
-
Yep and only a month or two after Egypt. We are going to need to change the date on this thread if gE has any hope of getting the Nobel this year.
Nobel prizes are really easy to get.
-
Yep and only a month or two after Egypt. We are going to need to change the date on this thread if gE has any hope of getting the Nobel this year.
Nobel prizes are really easy to get.
They are incredibly difficult to get, actually.
-
Yep and only a month or two after Egypt. We are going to need to change the date on this thread if gE has any hope of getting the Nobel this year.
Nobel prizes are really easy to get.
They are incredibly difficult to get, actually.
just a pre-date switch away at this point.
-
Yep and only a month or two after Egypt. We are going to need to change the date on this thread if gE has any hope of getting the Nobel this year.
Nobel prizes are really easy to get.
They are incredibly difficult to get, actually.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5NvexgI.png&hash=3c64cf80a6085856fab7d6e1801a37e2b2e09fbf)
-
you stupid libs walked right into that one
-
Wow. Didn't see that one coming. Next I bet I find out that it's super easy to become President of the United States, too.
-
Wow. Didn't see that one coming. Next I bet I find out that it's super easy to become President of the United States, too.
Well......
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.rt.com%2Ffiles%2Fnews%2F20%2F02%2Fb0%2F00%2Fgeorge-bush-heart-stent.si.jpg&hash=b0a0fb9d5904e13fb24ea1aa5b1a0c097ad644ec)
-
Wow. Didn't see that one coming. Next I bet I find out that it's super easy to become President of the United States, too.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5NvexgI.png&hash=3c64cf80a6085856fab7d6e1801a37e2b2e09fbf)
-
:ump:
-
Watched a National Geographic documentary on Denver marijuana. It said gang violence in Denver has doubled since the passing of the law. Also as they're getting squeezed out of pot they are really pushing the super bad crap like pills, meth, and heroin. Sad.
-
Watched a National Geographic documentary on Denver marijuana. It said gang violence in Denver has doubled since the passing of the law. Also as they're getting squeezed out of pot they are really pushing the super bad crap like pills, meth, and heroin. Sad.
LOL, no.
-
Watched a National Geographic documentary on Denver marijuana. It said gang violence in Denver has doubled since the passing of the law. Also as they're getting squeezed out of pot they are really pushing the super bad crap like pills, meth, and heroin. Sad.
LOL, no.
Yup, true. You should watch it. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/episodes/rocky-mountain-high/
-
Watched a National Geographic documentary on Denver marijuana. It said gang violence in Denver has doubled since the passing of the law. Also as they're getting squeezed out of pot they are really pushing the super bad crap like pills, meth, and heroin. Sad.
LOL, no.
Yup, true. You should watch it. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/episodes/rocky-mountain-high/
Sorry, but gang violence has not doubled.
-
Watched a National Geographic documentary on Denver marijuana. It said gang violence in Denver has doubled since the passing of the law. Also as they're getting squeezed out of pot they are really pushing the super bad crap like pills, meth, and heroin. Sad.
LOL, no.
Yup, true. You should watch it. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/episodes/rocky-mountain-high/
Sorry, but gang violence has not doubled.
That's what they said. :dunno:
-
Watched a National Geographic documentary on Denver marijuana. It said gang violence in Denver has doubled since the passing of the law. Also as they're getting squeezed out of pot they are really pushing the super bad crap like pills, meth, and heroin. Sad.
LOL, no.
Yup, true. You should watch it. http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/episodes/rocky-mountain-high/
Sorry, but gang violence has not doubled.
That's what they said. :dunno:
Did some quick research. You seem to be right but it has nothing to do with the legalization.
From a Denver Post article:
Gang violence remains below where it was five years ago, and the overall number of gang-related crimes has dropped in that time.
-
http://kdvr.com/2014/05/15/study-more-marijuana-positive-drivers-involved-in-fatal-car-accidents-in-colorado/
-
http://kdvr.com/2014/05/15/study-more-marijuana-positive-drivers-involved-in-fatal-car-accidents-in-colorado/
such a weird study and timing of its release. It certainly seems bogus and/or intentionally misleading.
[/quote]Using data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System from 1994 to 2011, researchers looked at fatal car accidents in Colorado and the 34 states that didn’t have medical marijuana laws.
They found fatal car crashes in Colorado with at least one driver who tested positive for marijuana was 4.5 percent in the first six months of 1994. In the last six months of 2011, that percentage had jumped to 10 percent. The researchers found no major changes over the same time in the proportion of drivers in fatal crashes in which drivers were alcohol-impaired.[/quote]
-
what is alcohol, 60 percent?
-
couldn't a person have smoked the day before? :dubious:
-
different study, same university
“Our research suggests that the legalization of medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities through reducing alcohol consumption by young adults,” said Daniel Rees, professor of economics at the University of Colorado Denver who co-authored the study with D. Mark Anderson, assistant professor of economics at Montana State University.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/Study-shows-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths.aspx
:dubious:
-
untestable hypothesis ;)
-
different study, same university
“Our research suggests that the legalization of medical marijuana reduces traffic fatalities through reducing alcohol consumption by young adults,” said Daniel Rees, professor of economics at the University of Colorado Denver who co-authored the study with D. Mark Anderson, assistant professor of economics at Montana State University.
http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/Study-shows-medical-marijuana-laws-reduce-traffic-deaths.aspx
:dubious:
This is so true:
The economists noted that simulator studies conducted by previous researchers suggest that drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to underestimate how badly their skills are impaired. They drive faster and take more risks. In contrast, these studies show that drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to avoid risks.
-
Most marijuana news stories around here are about adults leaving edible cookies/candy lying around and kids getting into them. I think it would be a bigger issue if they didn't have such a shitty aftertaste. Hard to imagine a kid eating more than one.
-
Also, the driving age is too low. 16 year olds are rough ridin' morons.
A group of like minded students and I tried to push a law through the Kansas Legislature after 5 driving related deaths in our area in one year by young drivers. It unfortunately died in committee. I would be curious to see what the correlation in other nations between driving age and driving licensing are in order to determine if that is a worthwhile endeavor.
On the topic at hand. . .the article mentions how most countries in the world allow younger drinking. Is there any proof that younger drinking age leads to more drinking responsibility?
When was this? I closely monitor all public policy discussions regarding transportation in the state of Kansas, and I've never heard of that initiative from you and your fellow enterprising young scholars.
Way back in 2002. We made it to nationals in a community problem solving competition but failed to take the prize because it didn't make it to vote.
That's fair. Can't really solve any problems in the community if a bill doesn't even make it out of committee. That's about as useful as pissing in a shoe.
@ydarg2012
:peek:
-
I can't understand why anyone would ever make a dispositive statement that marijuana is safer than alcohol. You either abuse a drug or you don't. They're all dangerous in excessive quantities.
The skepticism regarding "science" is well founded, when you consider the number of studies pushing this bullshit.
-
I can't understand why anyone would ever make a dispositive statement that marijuana is safer than alcohol. You either abuse a drug or you don't. They're all dangerous in excessive quantities.
The skepticism regarding "science" is well founded, when you consider the number of studies pushing this bullshit.
Do you find merit in differentiating between "kinds" and "degrees"?
-
I can't understand why anyone would ever make a dispositive statement that marijuana is safer than alcohol. You either abuse a drug or you don't. They're all dangerous in excessive quantities.
The skepticism regarding "science" is well founded, when you consider the number of studies pushing this bullshit.
Do you find merit in differentiating between "kinds" and "degrees"?
I don't understand the question. To the extent differentiating "degrees" are measurable, of course.
-
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf (http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf)
Crime down 10% from a year ago. :Wha:
-
Other notable conclusions from that article:
1.) Hunger up 15%
2.) Happiness up 8%
3.) Sleepiness up 35%
-
Other notable conclusions from that article:
1.) Hunger up 15%
2.) Happiness up 8%
3.) Sleepiness up 35%
HAPPINESS RISING
-
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf (http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf)
Crime down 10% from a year ago. :Wha:
Arson is up 140%? Or maybe just people accidentally lighting things on fire?
-
http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf (http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/720/documents/statistics/2014/UCR_Citywide_Reported%20_Offenses_2014.pdf)
Crime down 10% from a year ago. :Wha:
Arson is up 140%? Or maybe just people accidentally lighting things on fire?
Make sure that roach is out before dropping it in that trash can.