Telepathic Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I see you are new here. There are plenty of pot apologist threads strewn all over this site. Try not to hijack this thread with your rationalization for why pot is harmless. Not an apologist thread, just pointing out the above referenced article is woefully ignorant; in particular when it comes to marijuana. How that Zimmerman took advantage of someone while they were high? How it's much less likely that Martin was the aggressor if he had just smoked a joint. Violence is NOT a side effect of THC, in fact quite the opposite. For proof, just look at this: (He's even wearing a hoodie). One of the things you might want to do if you are going to be a regular poster here is read the article you linked to. If you disagree with that article why would anyone here have cause to believe it? Furthermore, if you don't agree with it why would you post it? I did not post the article.
KD in CA Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 How it's much less likely that Martin was the aggressor if he had just smoked a joint. Violence is NOT a side effect of THC, in fact quite the opposite. For proof, just look at this: Is that the Cheech and Chong defense? 'Cause everyone reacts the same way when high!
Chef Jim Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 How it's much less likely that Martin was the aggressor if he had just smoked a joint. Violence is NOT a side effect of THC, in fact quite the opposite. For proof, just look at this: So the broken nose and bashed up head mean nothing? Stoned or not he was violent.
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Not an apologist thread, just pointing out the above referenced article is woefully ignorant; in particular when it comes to marijuana. How it's much less likely that Martin was the aggressor if he had just smoked a joint. Violence is NOT a side effect of THC, in fact quite the opposite. For proof, just look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfTU6jDH9rs (He's even wearing a hoodie). I did not post the article. Are you saying that you didn't post a link to a CNN article on the previous page?
Telepathic Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 (edited) Is that the Cheech and Chong defense? 'Cause everyone reacts the same way when high! Not what i said. The article implied because he was high on marijuana he was more of a threat. That's pattently absurd from a medical, psychological and pysiological standpoint. THC alone does not promote violent urges, arguing or implying that it does so is an admition that one does not know what he or she is talking about. Go home tonight and spark a joint. See how much you feel like fighting. Now, drink a six-pack and see how quickly you can become violent. So the broken nose and bashed up head mean nothing? Stoned or not he was violent. I was not there and have no take on whether he was guilty or innocent. I haven't argued one way or the other, nor do I intend to. I do know that an article (post #1654) that goes out of its way to paint Martin as a degenerate or violent youth because he smoked weed is a waste of ink; and someone who posts it as a serious plank in the debate is laughably ignorant and needs to chill out. Are you saying that you didn't post a link to a CNN article on the previous page? You are having a different conversation I think. The CNN article was a follow up to post #1654, showing that the evidence the poster was bringing up had been ruled on by the Judge in the case. Edited May 28, 2013 by Telepathic
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Not what i said. The article implied because he was high on marijuana he was more of a threat. That's pattently absurd from a medical, psychological and pysiological standpoint. THC alone does not promote violent urges, arguing or implying that it does so is an admition that one does not know what he or she is talking about. Go home tonight and spark a joint. See how much you feel like fighting. Now, drink a six-pack and see how quickly you can become violent. I was not there and have no take on whether he was guilty or innocent. I haven't argued one way or the other, nor do I intend to. I do know that an article (post #1654) that goes out of its way to paint Martin as a degenerate or violent youth because he smoked weed is a waste of ink; and someone who posts it as a serious plank in the debate is laughably ignorant and needs to chill out. You are having a different conversation I think. The CNN article was a follow up to post #1654, showing that the evidence the poster was bringing up had been ruled on by the Judge in the case. I think the pot has you confused. The article that you posted a link to said that he could have been smoking pot two hours previous to his death. That's why I suggested that you read the article first before linking to it. Also, while we all know pot tends to make a person mellow, it also can induce paranoia.
Telepathic Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I think the pot has you confused. The article that you posted a link to said that he could have been smoking pot two hours previous to his death. That's why I suggested that you read the article first before linking to it. Also, while we all know pot tends to make a person mellow, it also can induce paranoia. The article does say that, and it's wrong, but that wasn't why I linked it. Apologies for the confusion; it was a direct response to post #1654 and the ruling the judge made on these matters. Paranoia is certainly a side effect, but violent paranoia is not. Again, spark a joint tonight and tell me how much you feel like getting in a fight. Try the same experiment with alcohol and you'll see quickly what the difference is. Assumming someone, even a 16 year old black kid wearing a hoodie, is a menace and/or violent simply because he has a history of marijuana use is poppycock, pure and simple. I defy you to read that article in 1654 and not see the clear and incredible bias presented therein.
KD in CA Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 Not what i said. The article implied because he was high on marijuana he was more of a threat. That's pattently absurd from a medical, psychological and pysiological standpoint. THC alone does not promote violent urges, arguing or implying that it does so is an admition that one does not know what he or she is talking about. Go home tonight and spark a joint. See how much you feel like fighting. Now, drink a six-pack and see how quickly you can become violent. I've done both and have been no more or less likely to become violent under either influence. A--holes act like a--holes; the drugs and/or alcohol are just a convenient excuse. But I find it amusing that some people seem so desperate to defend this one particular a--hole just because he got himself shot.
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 The article does say that, and it's wrong, but that wasn't why I linked it. Apologies for the confusion; it was a direct response to post #1654 and the ruling the judge made on these matters. Paranoia is certainly a side effect, but violent paranoia is not. Again, spark a joint tonight and tell me how much you feel like getting in a fight. Try the same experiment with alcohol and you'll see quickly what the difference is. Assumming someone, even a 16 year old black kid wearing a hoodie, is a menace and/or violent simply because he has a history of marijuana use is poppycock, pure and simple. I defy you to read that article in 1654 and not see the clear and incredible bias presented therein. So, this is the one line in his article that you disagree with so much? On February 26, bored and likely high, Martin was in no mood to be challenged by some small "white" guy who was trying to maintain a visual on him until the police arrived. If your pot advocacy is going to be this dull, you're not going to have much fun here.
Telepathic Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I've done both and have been no more or less likely to become violent under either influence. A--holes act like a--holes; the drugs and/or alcohol are just a convenient excuse. I do not deny that reasoning one bit. Well said. But I find it amusing that some people seem so desperate to defend this one particular a--hole just because he got himself shot. I find it amusing that so many people seem so desperate to defend Zimmerman. The truth of the matter is that none of this would have happened had he not decided to take the law into his own hands. Right or wrong, he got himself into the situation and someone died as a result. Blame will be determined by the courts and I'm fine with that. He's innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, but he'll always be a moron in mine. So, this is the one line in his article that you disagree with so much? On February 26, bored and likely high, Martin was in no mood to be challenged by some small "white" guy who was trying to maintain a visual on him until the police arrived. If your pot advocacy is going to be this dull, you're not going to have much fun here. That one line sums up everything that is wrong with the article and the person who posted it.
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 I do not deny that reasoning one bit. Well said. I find it amusing that so many people seem so desperate to defend Zimmerman. The truth of the matter is that none of this would have happened had he not decided to take the law into his own hands. Right or wrong, he got himself into the situation and someone died as a result. Blame will be determined by the courts and I'm fine with that. He's innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, but he'll always be a moron in mine. That one line sums up everything that is wrong with the article and the person who posted it. Greg, is that you?
Gene Frenkle Posted May 28, 2013 Posted May 28, 2013 As an aside, George looks like he's been smoking a lot of pot and then eating a lot of Doritos. Holy crap!
Maury Ballstein Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 As an aside, George looks like he's been smoking a lot of pot and then eating a lot of Doritos. Holy crap! Definetly. Gz is one tubby mofo. Looks like he's spending that defense money at the golden corral.
Chef Jim Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 I was not there and have no take on whether he was guilty or innocent. I haven't argued one way or the other, nor do I intend to. I do know that an article (post #1654) that goes out of its way to paint Martin as a degenerate or violent youth because he smoked weed is a waste of ink; and someone who posts it as a serious plank in the debate is laughably ignorant and needs to chill out. You didn't read the article did you? It went out of it's way to point Martin as a degenerate and violent youth because he fought a lot and had an interest in hand guns.
3rdnlng Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 You didn't read the article did you? It went out of it's way to point Martin as a degenerate and violent youth because he fought a lot and had an interest in hand guns. I think it also said that he had missed 53 days of school up to that point. I guess that's not always a bad thing---less indoctrination in the liberal way.
boyst Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 This thread is awesome. Thank you for prime entertainment. I almost wish I had something very stupid to add so I could fuel the flames of stupidity. Has it been mentioned recently that Trayvon was black???
Gene Frenkle Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 What's the bounty on GZ's head up to now? 15-20 lbs?
3rdnlng Posted May 29, 2013 Posted May 29, 2013 This thread is awesome. Thank you for prime entertainment. I almost wish I had something very stupid to add so I could fuel the flames of stupidity. Has it been mentioned recently that Trayvon was black??? It's not that simple. When it comes to this thread you can't simply be black, white or even hispanic. You can be a white hispanic, a black hispanic, a white white, a black black, and in Obama's case a white black. I think poor Trayvon was black black though. 15-20 lbs? It has to be in dollars, not no stinkin English money.
Recommended Posts