Asbestos???? Don't be silly. How can asbestos harm you? It's been in use for at least 50 years.Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
Brazenly forging ahead on the path of stupid previously layed down by others...CAA Flagship wrote:Asbestos???? Don't be silly. How can asbestos harm you? It's been in use for at least 50 years.Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
- Anonymous, April 1940
kalm wrote:Brazenly forging ahead on the path of stupid previously layed down by others...CAA Flagship wrote: Asbestos???? Don't be silly. How can asbestos harm you? It's been in use for at least 50 years.
- Anonymous, April 1940
That sums up this thread very well. I knew you were good for something.CAA Flagship wrote:kalm wrote:
Brazenly forging ahead on the path of stupid previously layed down by others...
You make a good point.D1B wrote:You do the same, Sgt. Slaughter.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: Hey cunt, answer your fucking phone once in a while.
I know the debate is over, that wasn't my question. They have conceded by their lack of a compelling argument all along. If you just bend over and point to your ass and say "give it to me" like they have been it can not be argued that they are putting up a fight.Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
They pointed out all the same reason Guns should be illegal
and all the same reasons Alcohol should be illegal
But they didn't point out ANY actual legitimate reason
Nothing that differentiates marijuana from a hand gun or a bottle of Vodka
Nothing...
Just the same reasons - over - and over - and over and - over
So... Yeas it has been like working with special needs children - only not as cute
What was "the debate" about, Shithead?Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
Yet another ill advised thread blowing up in TRUMPman's face.travelinman67 wrote:What was "the debate" about, Shithead?Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
Bumptravelinman67 wrote:What was "the debate" about, Shithead?Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
Your level of dorkiness and ignorance with an assist from 89 and Flaggy.travelinman67 wrote:Bumptravelinman67 wrote:
What was "the debate" about, Shithead?
Fuck off, Uniball.kalm wrote:Your level of dorkiness and ignorance with an assist from 89 and Flaggy.travelinman67 wrote:
Bump
Bump...I'll keep doing this until Shithead replies.travelinman67 wrote:What was "the debate" about, Shithead?Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
I thought about smoking some weed tonight, which I do every few weeks.travelinman67 wrote:Fuck off, Uniball.kalm wrote:
Your level of dorkiness and ignorance with an assist from 89 and Flaggy.
Bumptravelinman67 wrote:What was "the debate" about, Shithead?Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
Based on what?Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:What the **** is wrong with you and Tman? It is as harmless as other legal substances...which does not mean harmless. Hell let's compare the deaths by alcohol and pot in states where it is legal and see which is more harmful. Stop making the argument up as you see fit.89Hen wrote: Glad I can entertain. I'm just posting for all the guys who think pot is harmless. And don't say nobody here believes that... they've said it many times.
cleets, I really have only been here the last portion of this dumbassery so have people been actually saying that pot is harmless? If they have I apologize in advance to you and Tman but I can not imagine that people were doing this.
You are probably right, pot is a lot less pervasive and damaging than alcohol. It can be compared, I ain't fucking doing it. Let's say the comparison is based on fuckedupedness. Whatever it takes to get you there is the number. Won't be long before we get to check it out in practice so you whiners will really have some hypocrisy to spread around the nets.BDKJMU wrote:Based on what?Ursus A. Horribilis wrote: What the **** is wrong with you and Tman? It is as harmless as other legal substances...which does not mean harmless. Hell let's compare the deaths by alcohol and pot in states where it is legal and see which is more harmful. Stop making the argument up as you see fit.
cleets, I really have only been here the last portion of this dumbassery so have people been actually saying that pot is harmless? If they have I apologize in advance to you and Tman but I can not imagine that people were doing this.
A 1 to 1 comparison? 1 joint versus 1 cigarette versus 1 beer/oz liquor/5 oz glass of wine..
Or 1 joint versus a pack of cigs versus 6-12 pack of beer/6-12 oz alcohol/a bottle of wine..
Would be a meaningless comparison. WAY more people drink, more often, and in much higher amounts (based on a 1-1 comparison), including in those states where pot is legal. And that will always be the case, so alchohol will always have the higher #s..
I can always tell when you're smoking weedkalm wrote:I thought about smoking some weed tonight, which I do every few weeks.travelinman67 wrote:
**** off, Uniball.
But I didn't.
You know why?
Because it's not **** addictive you hysterical square!
CID1990 wrote:I can always tell when you're smoking weedkalm wrote:
I thought about smoking some weed tonight, which I do every few weeks.
But I didn't.
You know why?
Because it's not **** addictive you hysterical square!
That's when we get a lot of contextual nuance out of you
Chizz, what is my stance on this subject? You seem to pretend to know, but based on the above post, it sure seems you don't.Chizzang wrote:Hen and T-man will allow for this nonsense when it comes to Marijuana
The actual "debate" is long LONG over and not a single valid reason was given
to defend their medieval perspective...
They pointed out all the same reason Guns should be illegal
and all the same reasons Alcohol should be illegal
But they didn't point out ANY actual legitimate reason
Nothing that differentiates marijuana from a hand gun or a bottle of Vodka
Nothing...
Just the same reasons - over - and over - and over and - over
So... Yeas it has been like working with special needs children - only not as cute
Chizz won't answer or answer honestly. The answer is yes.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:But, what I asked was simple. Has anyone been making the claim, anywhere along the way that pot is absolutely safe and has zero danger as they have both said on a couple of occasions?
That is a really a "yes" or "no" type thing so don't go into that Tman circumlocutory type shit in the answer. I expect one sentence or less.
89Hen wrote:Chizz won't answer or answer honestly. The answer is yes.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:But, what I asked was simple. Has anyone been making the claim, anywhere along the way that pot is absolutely safe and has zero danger as they have both said on a couple of occasions?
That is a really a "yes" or "no" type thing so don't go into that Tman circumlocutory type shit in the answer. I expect one sentence or less.
He knows better than to lie to me. I'll talk to him about lying to you though.89Hen wrote:Chizz won't answer or answer honestly. The answer is yes.Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:But, what I asked was simple. Has anyone been making the claim, anywhere along the way that pot is absolutely safe and has zero danger as they have both said on a couple of occasions?
That is a really a "yes" or "no" type thing so don't go into that Tman circumlocutory type shit in the answer. I expect one sentence or less.
Say what?Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
But, what I asked was simple. Has anyone been making the claim, anywhere along the way that pot is absolutely safe and has zero danger as they have both said on a couple of occasions?
That is a really a "yes" or "no" type thing so don't go into that Tman circumlocutory type shit in the answer. I expect one sentence or less.
Hope you had a nice trip to the county library to look up the definition of "circumlocutory."travelinman67 wrote:Say what?Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:
But, what I asked was simple. Has anyone been making the claim, anywhere along the way that pot is absolutely safe and has zero danger as they have both said on a couple of occasions?
That is a really a "yes" or "no" type thing so don't go into that Tman circumlocutory type shit in the answer. I expect one sentence or less.
You better go back and review this thread, Gomer.
I've been succinct in stating my position, despite the pro-pothead's attempts to broaden the scope of this debate...of which YOU contributed.
My position has been that pot is harmful. I've posted NUMEROUS articles citing research/studies to support my position.
PERIOD!!!
AND I MEAN FUCKING PERIOD!!!
The potheads and their supporters have wasted time throwing around straw man arguments and deflecting the debate with the "compared to..." nonsense (which you heartily participated in).
Circumlocutory? Look in the mirror, Son.
Tman's answer to an honest question....from page 1travelinman67 wrote:Hyperdefensive denial.kalm wrote:
How do you know they're substance abusers?
