Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » Marijuana
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239529 is a reply to message #239517] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 02:13   |
 |
ron paul
Messages: 103
Registered: May 2006
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| SpyGuy246 wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 00:15 |
But why would people smoke shitty weed?
|
Usually when weed in general is in low availability. The shitty stuff which was not previously smoked/sold is all that's left in any bulk.
Also, you can avoid getting too high by limiting the size of a joint. For example, rather than using 3 skins - which is an international standard for sharing with friends - you can use 1 skin and that will half the amount you would get with three skinned joint.
this is more common than the self-diagnosis of asperger's in the goon population how is it obsCURE FUCKKK
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239550 is a reply to message #239549] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 07:20 |
puddle_splasher
Messages: 595
Registered: May 2006
Location: Scotland, UK
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 08:12 |
It's a public establishment. Meaning it has to be accessable to ALL of the public. Which is why laws like this are allowed to come into effect.
If it were a private establishment, then I could see your argument.
|
Take the UK as the example. Private "mens clubs" still have the no-smoking ban, to protect its members. We pay to use the establishment but why should I have to breathe the passive smoke?
I mean its not as if I piss in your ash-tray and say "Here, have the end product of my beer".
But thats what we have to put up with, the end product of smoking, we have to breathe it, no option.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239555 is a reply to message #239550] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 07:43 |
 |
Ryu
Messages: 2833
Registered: September 2006
Location: Liverpool, England.
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| puddle_splasher wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 14:20 |
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 08:12 |
It's a public establishment. Meaning it has to be accessable to ALL of the public. Which is why laws like this are allowed to come into effect.
If it were a private establishment, then I could see your argument.
|
Take the UK as the example. Private "mens clubs" still have the no-smoking ban, to protect its members. We pay to use the establishment but why should I have to breathe the passive smoke?
I mean its not as if I piss in your ash-tray and say "Here, have the end product of my beer".
But thats what we have to put up with, the end product of smoking, we have to breathe it, no option.
|
Whao!!, My brother tells me he smokes like 40 cigs in 20 different clubs on friday nights, Not including pubs. D:
I guess the law hasn't took affect in liverpool. 
Presence is a curious thing, if you think you need to prove it... you probably never had it in the first place.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239558 is a reply to message #239549] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 07:55 |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 09:12 |
| Darkknight wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 20:59 |
A business owner should have the right to allow smoking. Cigarettes are not illegal. If you don’t like the smoke don’t visit the business. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you into a place that allows smoking.
You own the land you should have every right to allow a LEGAL substance on your property.
|
It's a public establishment. Meaning it has to be accessable to ALL of the public. Which is why laws like this are allowed to come into effect.
If it were a private establishment, then I could see your argument.
|
No... if it was a public establishment then businesses like bars couldn't have bouncers standing in the front turning away people they don't want in the club. It's NOT a public establishment.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239565 is a reply to message #238830] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 08:41 |
Romaner
Messages: 355
Registered: January 2007
Location: edmonton, canada
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
ok well first of all you dont have to smoke the whole joint if you dont feel like it lol. second thing is who smokes weed and plans on not getting high?? mayb pirate lol, but i mean its like smoking a cigarette and not wanting the nicotine...
and yes drinking is different because sometimes i want to drink for the taste of it, not to get drunk. and sometimes i drink just to get drunk, but with weed its different you smoke it to get high or you just dont....
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239568 is a reply to message #239558] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 08:52 |
 |
warranto
Messages: 2584
Registered: February 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 07:55 |
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 09:12 |
| Darkknight wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 20:59 |
A business owner should have the right to allow smoking. Cigarettes are not illegal. If you don’t like the smoke don’t visit the business. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you into a place that allows smoking.
You own the land you should have every right to allow a LEGAL substance on your property.
|
It's a public establishment. Meaning it has to be accessable to ALL of the public. Which is why laws like this are allowed to come into effect.
If it were a private establishment, then I could see your argument.
|
No... if it was a public establishment then businesses like bars couldn't have bouncers standing in the front turning away people they don't want in the club. It's NOT a public establishment.
|
Heh, and this is what I get for trying to use the common terms, rather than legal terms.
By "public" I mean ones that are not "authorized (wrong word, I know) for exemptions to laws. Private establishments can discriminate, choose who can be a member, etc. Bouncers can not. They most likely do it, but they skirt around the law by trying to come up with reasonable excuses as to why the alleged discrimination was allowed.
On the other side, just to bring in another argument, is the employee factor. Many of the employees of bars are quite glad about the new law banning smoking, and fully endorse it. So that more or less puts the business in a bind. If the employees want it, then what can be done except go along with it?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239570 is a reply to message #238830] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 09:03 |
|
|
Well then, the government is bullshit. The government has too much power over its people. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE should the government have say whether or not a business has the right to say whether or not a business can allow or disallow smoking in THEIR establishment.
Whether or not they can, it's absolute bullshit.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239571 is a reply to message #239568] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 09:05 |
 |
DarkKnight
Messages: 754
Registered: May 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 09:52 |
| j_ball430 wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 07:55 |
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 09:12 |
| Darkknight wrote on Tue, 16 January 2007 20:59 |
A business owner should have the right to allow smoking. Cigarettes are not illegal. If you don’t like the smoke don’t visit the business. No one is holding a gun to your head forcing you into a place that allows smoking.
You own the land you should have every right to allow a LEGAL substance on your property.
|
It's a public establishment. Meaning it has to be accessable to ALL of the public. Which is why laws like this are allowed to come into effect.
If it were a private establishment, then I could see your argument.
|
No... if it was a public establishment then businesses like bars couldn't have bouncers standing in the front turning away people they don't want in the club. It's NOT a public establishment.
|
Heh, and this is what I get for trying to use the common terms, rather than legal terms.
By "public" I mean ones that are not "authorized (wrong word, I know) for exemptions to laws. Private establishments can discriminate, choose who can be a member, etc. Bouncers can not. They most likely do it, but they skirt around the law by trying to come up with reasonable excuses as to why the alleged discrimination was allowed.
On the other side, just to bring in another argument, is the employee factor. Many of the employees of bars are quite glad about the new law banning smoking, and fully endorse it. So that more or less puts the business in a bind. If the employees want it, then what can be done except go along with it?
|
That’s right just go along with it. Don't fight back. Wonder what the next thing to come is that attacks business owners on what they can and cannot do.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t the people who are happy there is a lift on smoking start that job with smoking there. It was there choice to work there with smoke. If I own a bar and I allow smoking its your choice to work there, to go there, to visit there.
And it’s not the employees who keep the business going. It’s the patrons who keep the place running so that the employees have some where to be employed at.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239573 is a reply to message #239566] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 09:21 |
 |
mrpirate
Messages: 1262
Registered: March 2003
Location: Ontario
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| SpyGuy246 wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 10:50 |
That's about what I expected to hear, actually. And that's why I'm against legalizing weed.
|
So smoking weed would be OK if people only did it because they liked the taste of smoking it (which I do more than I enjoy the taste of alcohol)? What's wrong with smoking weed to get high? When you smoke pot you do reach an altered state faster than alcohol, but it doesn't last nearly as long nor is it as incapacitating.
[Updated on: Wed, 17 January 2007 09:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239588 is a reply to message #239555] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 11:09 |
puddle_splasher
Messages: 595
Registered: May 2006
Location: Scotland, UK
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Alex wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 08:43 |
| puddle_splasher wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 14:20 |
| warranto wrote on Wed, 17 January 2007 08:12 |
It's a public establishment. Meaning it has to be accessable to ALL of the public. Which is why laws like this are allowed to come into effect.
If it were a private establishment, then I could see your argument.
|
Take the UK as the example. Private "mens clubs" still have the no-smoking ban, to protect its members. We pay to use the establishment but why should I have to breathe the passive smoke?
I mean its not as if I piss in your ash-tray and say "Here, have the end product of my beer".
But thats what we have to put up with, the end product of smoking, we have to breathe it, no option.
|
Whao!!, My brother tells me he smokes like 40 cigs in 20 different clubs on friday nights, Not including pubs. D:
I guess the law hasn't took affect in liverpool.
|
I live in Scotland not England.
The law is changing in England. Possibly July at the latest will see the UK as a whole, having smoke-free pubs. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239613 is a reply to message #238830] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 13:13 |
Romaner
Messages: 355
Registered: January 2007
Location: edmonton, canada
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
well to tell you the truth i use it because i want to, there is no good reason for most to do it. but there are alot of things we do for no good reason so does that mean we should not do them just because we dont have a good reason? like there is no good reason to even have one drink of alcoholic beverage. there is no good reason to drive a 13mpg muscle car, but lots do it... and i wont even mention those that drive a truck in the city when they never need anything towed or hauled, but they still do it. why not make that illegal? all im saying is if weed was to be legalized and there would be laws to using it just like there are for alcohol what would be the harm to it? like not smoking in public no smoking and driving and not to be high in public (to some extent) like if you are so high you dont even know what your name is and where you are going then that should be disallowed in public, but if you want to get some herb and go home and smoke it till you start drooling from your mouth why should that be illegal? or if you want to smoke a joint and go to a movie whats the harm in that?
i mean unlike alcohol i have never seen or heard about it making any one violent all it does is it relaxes you and makes you forget about your ongoing stress in life, for some period of time. and yes i did start smoking it during a hard time in my life, im not about to say what exactly but it was pretty much the only thing that got me through some tough times, times where i would prob be seeing a councellor about but i figure this was probubly cheaper lol. and i know most will say well you can relax without smoking weed, and i do that too but some times that is the only thing that calmes me down.
[Updated on: Wed, 17 January 2007 13:19] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Marijuana [message #239618 is a reply to message #238830] |
Wed, 17 January 2007 13:58 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7428
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Well, with my ex you have to add in the fact that he was drunk AND high and mere hours away from pointing the gun at his own head. He was literally getting his last meal delivered before he planned to go to a motel and shoot himself in the head. (A motel, because he lived in an apartment under his dad's house and didn't want him to have to deal with the cleanup)
The worst thing I have seen with weed, however, is that people who are on don't care about the consequences of their actions. I hate to use this same guy as an example, but he was, at this time, one of the assistant managers at the Domino's Pizza where we all worked. (I was the manager)
So, he had gone outside for one reason or another and those of us in the store locked the door so he couldn't get back in. It was stupid and funny because he had a key to the door in his pocket. But, instead of unlocking the door, he took this huge rock we used to prop the door open and hurled it over and over at the big steel door, leaving several dents in it. I don't know what he was thinking, but he obviously wasn't considering the consequences of his actions (such as the owner discovering it and making him pay for it out of his $6.50 an hour paycheck).
People who are high just act so relaxed and calm that I seriously doubt they could seriously react to something that needed them to be alert.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 01 11:01:32 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01595 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
