Welcome to Gaia! ::

Should Marijuana be legal? Explain your answer below!

Yes. 0.59821428571429 59.8% [ 67 ]
No. 0.23214285714286 23.2% [ 26 ]
I don't care just roll me a blunt. 0.16964285714286 17.0% [ 19 ]
Total Votes:[ 112 ]
< 1 2 3 ... 15 16 17 18 >
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Fuzery
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery
Pot is bad. There are so many myths out there that until recently I believed.
Here is a website that will set everyone straight and make you realize that yes, it is as bad as they make it out to be.
Fact v. Fiction; Marijuana
]
'

Do you want me to go through every claim on that website, quote it here and then post a medical journal study about why it's wrong?

Or would you rather I just tell you there's not a single bit of factual information in there, and what is based in fact is misrepresentation from the actual studies it tries to compile it from?

Ya I want proof. I kinda don't want to be wrong so if you could find me some information that isn't on a shady .com website like the one I found I'd love it.


Uh, lady. The website you found IS a shady .com. rolleyes

There.

Unbiased medical journals. Not some shitty .com website in which 10 out of the 12 sources cited aren't biased government resources.

I'm a guy emo but it's okay. And ya I know it's shady that's why I said I don't want one like the one I found : P
And yes! Although they tested on rats. Which makes me sad. But it happens all the time so. . . meh. Thanks for finding that for me.


I go by avis man, If it looks like a girl, I assume it's a girl. It's sexist I realize, but it's all I got :'(

Anyway, Erowid.org is THE place for drug knowledge. They're unbiased to the point it's absurd.
Fuzery's avatar

Questionable Loiterer

12,550 Points
  • Love Machine 150
  • Inquisitor 200
  • Elocutionist 200
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery
Pot is bad. There are so many myths out there that until recently I believed.
Here is a website that will set everyone straight and make you realize that yes, it is as bad as they make it out to be.
Fact v. Fiction; Marijuana
]
'

Do you want me to go through every claim on that website, quote it here and then post a medical journal study about why it's wrong?

Or would you rather I just tell you there's not a single bit of factual information in there, and what is based in fact is misrepresentation from the actual studies it tries to compile it from?

Ya I want proof. I kinda don't want to be wrong so if you could find me some information that isn't on a shady .com website like the one I found I'd love it.


Uh, lady. The website you found IS a shady .com. rolleyes

There.

Unbiased medical journals. Not some shitty .com website in which 10 out of the 12 sources cited aren't biased government resources.

I'm a guy emo but it's okay. And ya I know it's shady that's why I said I don't want one like the one I found : P
And yes! Although they tested on rats. Which makes me sad. But it happens all the time so. . . meh. Thanks for finding that for me.


I go by avis man, If it looks like a girl, I assume it's a girl. It's sexist I realize, but it's all I got :'(

Anyway, Erowid.org is THE place for drug knowledge. They're unbiased to the point it's absurd.
Avatar is a male. Wah it's that girly looking?! I fail.
I wish I could read the entries about cognitive development because that's what I suspect one of the biggest cons about it is. cognitive impairment.
The Dark Knight Vael's avatar

Chatty Raider

8,350 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Tycoon 200
Definitely think it should be legalized. It's a largely non harmful substance, and vastly more harmful products are readily available for purchase.

We'd also save a ******** of money from how much we'd be able to drop from the "war on drugs".
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Fuzery
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery
Mister George Kapland
Fuzery

Ya I want proof. I kinda don't want to be wrong so if you could find me some information that isn't on a shady .com website like the one I found I'd love it.


Uh, lady. The website you found IS a shady .com. rolleyes

There.

Unbiased medical journals. Not some shitty .com website in which 10 out of the 12 sources cited aren't biased government resources.

I'm a guy emo but it's okay. And ya I know it's shady that's why I said I don't want one like the one I found : P
And yes! Although they tested on rats. Which makes me sad. But it happens all the time so. . . meh. Thanks for finding that for me.


I go by avis man, If it looks like a girl, I assume it's a girl. It's sexist I realize, but it's all I got :'(

Anyway, Erowid.org is THE place for drug knowledge. They're unbiased to the point it's absurd.
Avatar is a male. Wah it's that girly looking?! I fail.
I wish I could read the entries about cognitive development because that's what I suspect one of the biggest cons about it is. cognitive impairment.


I can pull up a list for them. The truth is, it does impair cognitive abilities while intoxicated, but there's been no hard evidence of it actually impairing teens. Although, I wouldn't recommend it's use to children.
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha

What you said in your last post was not what you said initially, nor was it what I originally asked you to cite,

Cite it I did. 3 court cases to back up the orginal text of the CSA which states there is no medicinal use. Period. Full stop.

Again, therefore if the government used your definition (which they do), all use is considered misuse. My thesis, is that if society were to follow that rule we will make no strives towards improving drug policy.
Riviera de la Mancha

A fact you can't seem to grasp. I don't know if you just don't understand subtext, or if you're purposefully dense.
which formed the entire basis of your imagined claim that I ignore your sources and don't listen to your positions.

Again, if you knew my position, which I've outlined and clarified for you to date 6 times, you wouldn't be saying that.
Instead, when I say "No, this is my position this is what I meant" you go "That's not what you meant! You meant this!"

Which is absurd. You're trying to claim you're some mind reader who can somehow pluck thoughts out of people's brains. I'm not impressed with your act, and nobody else is.
Riviera de la Mancha

Like I said, anyone here is free to fact-check your comments here, where they will invariably see your failing, which includes your asserted inferences which can only make sense to the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's imagination.

I've gotten 3 PM's from 3 different people going, and this is a direct quote from one of them

Quote:

I can't see anywhere that you've contradicted yourself.
I think Riviera is just trolling you



....So... people have been fact checking me.
Riviera de la Mancha

That I call you a stoner is merely stating a fact, which you have shown time and again to be proud of. Don't get mad at me if you step in it and walk around the house.


No, I'm a psychonaught. There's a subtle difference. Mainly, my banner isn't a term used for oppression and demeaning people.

And again, more evidence that you can't read. My position is not discussing what you meant. I am saying you, quite literally, said something entirely different from what you are claiming now.

And yet, these three posters seem to offer nothing to contest this claim that they think is wrong. How expected...
Phallic Wonderland's avatar

Distinct Browser

10,150 Points
  • Grunny Rainbow 100
  • Gender Swap 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha

What you said in your last post was not what you said initially, nor was it what I originally asked you to cite,

Cite it I did. 3 court cases to back up the orginal text of the CSA which states there is no medicinal use. Period. Full stop.

Again, therefore if the government used your definition (which they do), all use is considered misuse. My thesis, is that if society were to follow that rule we will make no strives towards improving drug policy.
Riviera de la Mancha

A fact you can't seem to grasp. I don't know if you just don't understand subtext, or if you're purposefully dense.
which formed the entire basis of your imagined claim that I ignore your sources and don't listen to your positions.

Again, if you knew my position, which I've outlined and clarified for you to date 6 times, you wouldn't be saying that.
Instead, when I say "No, this is my position this is what I meant" you go "That's not what you meant! You meant this!"

Which is absurd. You're trying to claim you're some mind reader who can somehow pluck thoughts out of people's brains. I'm not impressed with your act, and nobody else is.
Riviera de la Mancha

Like I said, anyone here is free to fact-check your comments here, where they will invariably see your failing, which includes your asserted inferences which can only make sense to the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's imagination.

I've gotten 3 PM's from 3 different people going, and this is a direct quote from one of them

Quote:

I can't see anywhere that you've contradicted yourself.
I think Riviera is just trolling you



....So... people have been fact checking me.
Riviera de la Mancha

That I call you a stoner is merely stating a fact, which you have shown time and again to be proud of. Don't get mad at me if you step in it and walk around the house.


No, I'm a psychonaught. There's a subtle difference. Mainly, my banner isn't a term used for oppression and demeaning people.

And again, more evidence that you can't read. My position is not discussing what you meant. I am saying you, quite literally, said something entirely different from what you are claiming now.

And yet, these three posters seem to offer nothing to contest this claim that they think is wrong. How expected...


Why not point out the post where you guys initially started this whole thing, because there is obviously some mis-communication going on and you just seem like an a*****e that is trying move goal posts by being vague and yet expecting stupid precise answers. Maybe both of you misunderstood the other. It happens.
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha

Hardly. I never compared levels of addictiveness. Rather, I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.

Lenient Drug Policy drives down abuse in conjunction with rehab clinics and sensible drug policy.
Riviera de la Mancha

I think its fair to assume that at least some young people would smoke weed were it not for regulations which, at the moment, generally discourage them by making it more difficult, even if only slightly. Allowing more people to smoke by making it open means you create more possibilities for abuse by those who, either way, wouldn't be allowed.

US Teen Drug statistics

Citing from my original source
Quote:
illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8%

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html#ixzz27u8QrCJV

Riviera de la Mancha

And what such a policy neglects to foresee is that, like cigarettes and alcohol, the gains are often marginal or pragmatic gains (i.e. you can't ban it, so in a sense, by not spending time or energy on control, what invariably couldn't be). People are simplifying the discussion when they neglect these considerations and act as if the gains are so obvious or simple to assess.

They are. You regulate and legalize use putting in clinics to help people manage addictions and abuse (Again countries who take this approach have abuse rates plummet).
Riviera de la Mancha

Take alcohol. Revenue from the sale of alcohol is likely greatly reduced because of the costs for substance abuse programs, counter-campaigns, and damages associated with its misuse. Alcohol exists essentially because society values it too much to its cultural worth.

Use statistics from all walks of life show "The most abused illicit drug is marijuana with 14.6 million drug users. On a regular basis,.2.4 million Americans use cocaine. " that Cannabis is just as important to our cultural worth.

To treat each substance differently when in fact the same treatment methods that work for alcohol work for illicit substances is completely asinine, moral mumbo-jumbo put forth by self-righteous prats who believe society should follow their own moral code.
Riviera de la Mancha

The drug and weed debate boils down to a serious question about the kind of values we want to put forth. Its not a clear policy analysis, and limiting it to that is what causes problems in analysis.

And that values you want to put for are "Put nonviolent offenders in prison with rapists and murders" even though jailing nonviolent offenders makes them 20 times more likely to become repeat offenders.

Your asinine view on drug policy is creating more criminals. And let's not forget we have less violent crime than say, the UK, and yet we have around 30 times the people in prison.

So the moral code you want to put out is, do drugs and we'll make sure you mingle with criminals, rapists, and murders. So you too, can learn to be a violent murderer-rapist. neutral

Another one of these terrible shows from you Shaggy? Looks like its time for me to, again, show you that its not indeed a real swamp monster scaring people at the lake...
Your first source is, in typical form for you, off base. Quoting myself, "I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.". Your source says nothing about this point. Rather, it discusses Portugal's drug policy, which replaced more traditional punishments with rehab to reduce drug use rates. It does not address my comment, which, put differently, says that any time you allow the public to do something, you open up the possibility that some people will abuse the new thing you are allowing them to do.

Your second link is just as pointless, as it seems to agree with the current system we have in the US, as under the current policy, we have seen drug use by teens drop. This is despite your fear-mongering that it has done nothing. It does nothing to establish whether or not allowing for drug use to become easier would not, at some level, increase the number of underage users as you open more channels for use. Your first article would have been better spent addressing this, though it raises a case for changing how we punish people, not whether its criminal or not.

Now, for the rest;
You erroneously assume my assessment of alcohol's cultural worth is a question of number of users, which your comments missed by only comparing weed to other illicit drugs. Alcohol is not illicit.

You also assume, without basis, that I favor the current incarceration system most states use.

Keep trying though little puppy. Maybe one day you can learn not to piddle on the carpet.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Riviera de la Mancha

Another one of these terrible shows from you Shaggy? Looks like its time for me to, again, show you that its not indeed a real swamp monster scaring people at the lake...
Your first source is, in typical form for you, off base. Quoting myself, "I am simply speaking about a fact in public policy- any time you allow persons to perform some act, you always create a corresponding possibility for abuse, which needs to be regulated. The question is simply how much, not if the abuse will occur at all.". Your source says nothing about this point. Rather, it discusses Portugal's drug policy, which replaced more traditional punishments with rehab to reduce drug use rates. It does not address my comment, which, put differently, says that any time you allow the public to do something, you open up the possibility that some people will abuse the new thing you are allowing them to do.

And that source showed that we can help curb abuse with lenient policies, which in fact DOES address your point. Stop with the shell-game. You said allowing somebody to perform an act opens up abuse, my source says that allowing somebody to perform an act opens up the possibility of treatment for said abuse. wink
Riviera de la Mancha

Your second link is just as pointless, as it seems to agree with the current system we have in the US, as under the current policy, we have seen drug use by teens drop. This is despite your fear-mongering that it has done nothing.

Fear-mongering? I did nothing but point out statistics.


Oh, and my second source says drug use has INCREASED

Quote:
Marijuana use has increased since 1992. The past-month use has dramatically increased among teenagers of all ages:

High school seniors: from 12% in 1992 to 20%
10th graders: from 8% in 1992 to 16%
8th graders: from 4% in 1992 to 6%

Same source
Riviera de la Mancha

It does nothing to establish whether or not allowing for drug use to become easier would not, at some level, increase the number of underage users as you open more channels for use. Your first article would have been better spent addressing this, though it raises a case for changing how we punish people, not whether its criminal or not.

Except teen use goes down.
Riviera de la Mancha

Now, for the rest;
You erroneously assume my assessment of alcohol's cultural worth is a question of number of users, which your comments missed by only comparing weed to other illicit drugs. Alcohol is not illicit.

However, Cannabis wasn't illegal until the early 1930's. Thus, it twas part of our cultural identity for the exact same time frame as Alcohol.

And, I can chronicle it's use in the colonies, since their founding to the present. Every thing from presidential use, to pop culture, to medicine, to recreation, from film to music.
Just as you can with alcohol.

Now, kindly, get the hell out of drug topics.

Oh, and you don't have to support jail policies to enforce a moral code that allows for it too happen. You've offered no alternatives, therefore your lack of action is a form of support in-itself, regardless of personal view.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Riviera de la Mancha
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha

What you said in your last post was not what you said initially, nor was it what I originally asked you to cite,

Cite it I did. 3 court cases to back up the orginal text of the CSA which states there is no medicinal use. Period. Full stop.

Again, therefore if the government used your definition (which they do), all use is considered misuse. My thesis, is that if society were to follow that rule we will make no strives towards improving drug policy.
Riviera de la Mancha

A fact you can't seem to grasp. I don't know if you just don't understand subtext, or if you're purposefully dense.
which formed the entire basis of your imagined claim that I ignore your sources and don't listen to your positions.

Again, if you knew my position, which I've outlined and clarified for you to date 6 times, you wouldn't be saying that.
Instead, when I say "No, this is my position this is what I meant" you go "That's not what you meant! You meant this!"

Which is absurd. You're trying to claim you're some mind reader who can somehow pluck thoughts out of people's brains. I'm not impressed with your act, and nobody else is.
Riviera de la Mancha

Like I said, anyone here is free to fact-check your comments here, where they will invariably see your failing, which includes your asserted inferences which can only make sense to the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's imagination.

I've gotten 3 PM's from 3 different people going, and this is a direct quote from one of them

Quote:

I can't see anywhere that you've contradicted yourself.
I think Riviera is just trolling you



....So... people have been fact checking me.
Riviera de la Mancha

That I call you a stoner is merely stating a fact, which you have shown time and again to be proud of. Don't get mad at me if you step in it and walk around the house.


No, I'm a psychonaught. There's a subtle difference. Mainly, my banner isn't a term used for oppression and demeaning people.

And again, more evidence that you can't read. My position is not discussing what you meant. I am saying you, quite literally, said something entirely different from what you are claiming now.

And yet, these three posters seem to offer nothing to contest this claim that they think is wrong. How expected...


To paraphrase from your entire argument this thread 'Nuh-uhhhh.'
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

Phallic Wonderland
Riviera de la Mancha
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha

What you said in your last post was not what you said initially, nor was it what I originally asked you to cite,

Cite it I did. 3 court cases to back up the orginal text of the CSA which states there is no medicinal use. Period. Full stop.

Again, therefore if the government used your definition (which they do), all use is considered misuse. My thesis, is that if society were to follow that rule we will make no strives towards improving drug policy.
Riviera de la Mancha

A fact you can't seem to grasp. I don't know if you just don't understand subtext, or if you're purposefully dense.
which formed the entire basis of your imagined claim that I ignore your sources and don't listen to your positions.

Again, if you knew my position, which I've outlined and clarified for you to date 6 times, you wouldn't be saying that.
Instead, when I say "No, this is my position this is what I meant" you go "That's not what you meant! You meant this!"

Which is absurd. You're trying to claim you're some mind reader who can somehow pluck thoughts out of people's brains. I'm not impressed with your act, and nobody else is.
Riviera de la Mancha

Like I said, anyone here is free to fact-check your comments here, where they will invariably see your failing, which includes your asserted inferences which can only make sense to the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's imagination.

I've gotten 3 PM's from 3 different people going, and this is a direct quote from one of them

Quote:

I can't see anywhere that you've contradicted yourself.
I think Riviera is just trolling you



....So... people have been fact checking me.
Riviera de la Mancha

That I call you a stoner is merely stating a fact, which you have shown time and again to be proud of. Don't get mad at me if you step in it and walk around the house.


No, I'm a psychonaught. There's a subtle difference. Mainly, my banner isn't a term used for oppression and demeaning people.

And again, more evidence that you can't read. My position is not discussing what you meant. I am saying you, quite literally, said something entirely different from what you are claiming now.

And yet, these three posters seem to offer nothing to contest this claim that they think is wrong. How expected...


Why not point out the post where you guys initially started this whole thing, because there is obviously some mis-communication going on and you just seem like an a*****e that is trying move goal posts by being vague and yet expecting stupid precise answers. Maybe both of you misunderstood the other. It happens.


We've already done that, remember? It eventually led to him leaving the thread for a week wink
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

What, no concession?

I knew you were a shady debater Riviera.

If I may, I'd like to attempt to explain how I think about this topic.

What I am wondering is why is this such a large topic in the first place. It's not like it should be a right, right? The right to smoke weed. Don't get me wrong I am neither for or against the legalization of Cannibis. I am just a little fascinated and confused at the fact that people think this is a pressing matter. There are more important rights that are currently being tested.

Here is something I'd like to ask an avid fighter for it's legalization. "Would you die fighting for the legalization of weed?" And I, personally, feel that if it is not a passionate yes... Perhaps it shouldn't be such a large topic. However, I could probably turn this into an educational issue, and get even more off topic.

Hope some of this makes sense.
Mister George Kapland's avatar

Hallowed Smoker

FreshCorpse

If I may, I'd like to attempt to explain how I think about this topic.

What I am wondering is why is this such a large topic in the first place. It's not like it should be a right, right? The right to smoke weed. Don't get me wrong I am neither for or against the legalization of Cannibis. I am just a little fascinated and confused at the fact that people think this is a pressing matter. There are more important rights that are currently being tested.

Here is something I'd like to ask an avid fighter for it's legalization. "Would you die fighting for the legalization of weed?" And I, personally, feel that if it is not a passionate yes... Perhaps it shouldn't be such a large topic. However, I could probably turn this into an educational issue, and get even more off topic.

Hope some of this makes sense.


The right to bodily integrity.

rolleyes
Insanity_Of_Chaos's avatar

4,300 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Brandisher 100
  • Member 100
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr
Riviera de la Mancha
Insanity_Of_Chaos
I've written a few research papers on this subject for my college classes. There is no reason that marijuana should be criminalized. The reasons it stays this way is not the reason most people think. It has nothing to do with the users and what they do with it. It has to do with what people replace with marijuana.

The cannabis plant itself it a small goldmine of resources. The plant is very strong and fibrous, lending well its uses to making textiles such as paper and fabric. The plant also can be rendered into fuel. The plant, in the correct growing conditions, can be harvested four times a year and it does little damage to the soil it grows from.

The plant also yields chemicals that do many things for the body. The two most active chemical components in this plant are THC and CBD. Both these molecules do different things for the body. THC rich treatments are used to treat issues such as pain, nausea, glaucoma, and even promotes healthy oxygen levels in the blood. CBD rich treatments have been shown effective in treating anxiety, ocd and other stress disorders, seizures, and has been known, since the 70's, to cure certain forms of cancer.

These benefits threaten not the people, but large companies that would normally have no competition. Marijuana's effectiveness as a textile resource is immense. The fact it can be grown and harvested so effectively means it very easily can push out major companies. These would be lumber industries, limited now to building materials (dying because of the economy) because hemp makes paper easily and cheaply. Also cotton industry, again because of the durability of hemp, which can be made as soft as the finest cottons. This would lower the price of these products to the american economy, and put these companies in jeopardy.

The benefits of using marijuana as a fuel source put every gasoline company in a state of panic as well. Since there are beginning to be more flexfuel vehicles oil could easily come from the marijuana plant and then could be refined into fuel.

The medical benefits of marijuana are various. Because of this pharmecutical companies have to compete with a substance which has no sideeffects, is low cost, and can effectively put many medications off the market.

Nothing to do with people getting high, nothing about how lazy we are or are not. People who are lazy will be lazy, and people who are modivated enough to make something of themselves will manage to do so. Marijuana isn't going to change that.

If you would like to see my sources, just let me know and I will post them.

I have never much bought the 'big pharma/gas/lumber/clothing is keepin us down man for the money man!' argument.

I mean really, am I to believe a sect of industry, with literally so much money its executives crap 500 dollar bills, really couldn't mosey on down to congress and create a regulatory scheme wherein only they are allowed to grow and commercialize weed? The argument is just too looney to me to buy when pharma and other large companies have proven to have a damn good track record of doing just this kind of thing with lobbying and PACs and the like.


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


I own two guns, legally I might add. I carry it around town with me. Even after smoking a crap ton out of every piece I got, I can split a dime at 15 yards.
Insanity_Of_Chaos's avatar

4,300 Points
  • Dressed Up 200
  • Brandisher 100
  • Member 100
Mister George Kapland
Riviera de la Mancha
deadroosters
Jacque De Martyr
Riviera de la Mancha
I have never much bought the 'big pharma/gas/lumber/clothing is keepin us down man for the money man!' argument.

I mean really, am I to believe a sect of industry, with literally so much money its executives crap 500 dollar bills, really couldn't mosey on down to congress and create a regulatory scheme wherein only they are allowed to grow and commercialize weed? The argument is just too looney to me to buy when pharma and other large companies have proven to have a damn good track record of doing just this kind of thing with lobbying and PACs and the like.


Wouldn't it be in the Government's best interest to legalize hemp and tax the living hell out of it?

Angry stoner with a gun says tax it reasonably.

Isn't an angry stoner an oxymoron? Like an active couch-potato or a loving sociopath?

I have friends who smoke, and if its one thing I would be hard pressed to buy, it would that they would have the gumption to pick up a gun, the balls to fire it at someone, and the mental and physical aptitude to hit the mark.


What did I tell you about coming into drug threads and talking out of your a**? Didn't you learn your lesson when I correctly pointed out that as soon as your position becomes undefendable you high-tail it the ******** out of these threads?


Ah, never give up on a fight. Trust this pot head, every time I mention my advocacy for legalizing mary jane, I risk expulsion if I present it in the wrong light,

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games