Hilarious Pot Legalization Supporters

[PolishDave]

Nope it's not debatable. It's completely false

 

De Nile is a river in Egypt brutha.

 

He's Polish Duh.

And proud! Booyah!

 

Free pierogi for everyone.

 

It's really a great stoner food.

Edited November 8, 2016 by PolishDave

[4merper4mer]

Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!

 

 

 

As for him, I lost touch after college, after he graduated from Notre Dame.

 

 

He is highly functional even though you lost touch with him after college?

 

I'm just quoting you dude.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

I don't have to distinguish the difference. You said he is HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL I'm just asking for clarification on how you know that and so far you have been unable to do that. And I will leave you with these questions.

 

How highly functional when he drives after a couple of bong hits?

How highly functional when he pays his bills after a couple fatties?

How highly functional is he when he fills out a loan application after a couple spliffs?

How highly functional is he when he as to decide between the regular or nacho cheese Doritos after a couple of bowls?

 

If I remember correctly you've never used before so you have no clue as to how goofy it is to do some of these things after you got your buzz on.

 

But you know he's highly functional. Once again. How do you know this?

You took issue with my characterization of highly functional, but you didn't know what it meant in the first place? And you're not sure what it means yourself? Seems prudent. Also convenient you don't provide your own standard by which it can be judged. How can you say you don't have to distinguish when you already have earlier?! You noted the difference between just functional and highly functional already, did you not?

 

Your point-of-view is a self-fulfilling prophecy that allows no room for a viewpoint that opposes yours.

[Andrew Son]

Today's election will be a banner moment in the movement to end prohibition.

 

Have fun with your stereotypes and Tom Petty references, the war is over!

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

 

 

He is highly functional even though you lost touch with him after college?

 

I'm just quoting you dude.

You make this too easy.

 

"Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!"

 

Here's the quote. Many people I know, as in know currently, are both highly functional human beings and pot smokers. That would not, of course, include this guy.

 

However, in that quote, it states "have known," which indicates past tense. Past tense applies to this man, since we have lost touch. I knew him personally, before, and as I've said numerous times before, every indication is that he highly functioning. And employed. I knew employment was big for you, and that's been established, so you've chosen to inaccurately decipher and parse my posts for unwarranted conclusions.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[4merper4mer]

You make this too easy.

 

"Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!"

 

Here's the quote. Many people I know, as in know currently, are both highly functional human beings and pot smokers. That would not, of course, include this guy.

 

However, in that quote, it states "have known," which indicates past tense. Past tense applies to this man, since we have lost touch. I knew him personally, before, and as I've said numerous times before, every indication is that he highly functioning. And employed. I knew employment was big for you, and that's been established, so you've chosen to inaccurately decipher and parse my posts for unwarranted conclusions.

 

 

In this case you left the word "were" out of your sentence. It should have read:

 

"Many people I know, and have known, are or were both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!"

 

 

The italicized sentence, which is not actually a sentence, should have tipped me off that something was amiss.

 

I now understand that, even though you did not specify at the time, you were saying that this dude was really smart and that in your clinical opinion his pot use did not rob him of any potential whatsoever. I'm glad you cleared that up. Thanks.

Today's election will be a banner moment in the movement to end prohibition.

 

Have fun with your stereotypes and Tom Petty references, the war is over!

 

 

You know when you'll know who really won the war to legalize pot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

 

In this case you left the word "were" out of your sentence. It should have read:

 

 

The italicized sentence, which is not actually a sentence, should have tipped me off that something was amiss.

 

I now understand that, even though you did not specify at the time, you were saying that this dude was really smart and that in your clinical opinion his pot use did not rob him of any potential whatsoever. I'm glad you cleared that up. Thanks.

 

 

Your post might be valid if I had lost all contact with those who communicated with him, often. But I didn't, so it's not.

 

Here's where you're becoming confused. I am not saying he WAS smart. I am saying I DID know him, and converse with those who do know him. The past v. present tense distinction I made had nothing to do with his intelligence, so I don't know why you're trying to make it.

[Chef Jim]

You took issue with my characterization of highly functional, but you didn't know what it meant in the first place? And you're not sure what it means yourself? Seems prudent. Also convenient you don't provide your own standard by which it can be judged. How can you say you don't have to distinguish when you already have earlier?! You noted the difference between just functional and highly functional already, did you not?

 

Your point-of-view is a self-fulfilling prophecy that allows no room for a viewpoint that opposes yours.

 

The only issue I took with your characterization is you have no proof that he is. Once again (and after this I'm done) you're the one that said that he (and others) were highly functional while stoned. I'm not here to debate the difference between being highly and marginally functional. I'm here to prove that you have no idea if he is highly functional. That's it. The only reason I've gone round and round with you is to find out how you consider him to be highly functional. So I will ask you one last time:

 

What are you basing your statement on that he and others are highly functional while stoned?

 

BTW you say that I allow for no viewpoint other than mine. You don't even know what my viewpoint is. You don't even know what you're arguing here do you. And to take a page out of 4mer's playbook. Are you sure you've never gotten high? Because you sure do debate as if you were.

[Maury Ballstein]

Worst thread ever.

 

Take a bong hit idiots.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

The only issue I took with your characterization is you have no proof that he is. Once again (and after this I'm done) you're the one that said that he (and others) were highly functional while stoned. I'm not here to debate the difference between being highly and marginally functional. I'm here to prove that you have no idea if he is highly functional. That's it. The only reason I've gone round and round with you is to find out how you consider him to be highly functional. So I will ask you one last time:

 

What are you basing your statement on that he and others are highly functional while stoned?

 

BTW you say that I allow for no viewpoint other than mine. You don't even know what my viewpoint is. You don't even know what you're arguing here do you. And to take a page out of 4mer's playbook. Are you sure you've never gotten high? Because you sure do debate as if you were.

Saying I have "no idea" and "no proof" after telling you what I know and have known of him is, once again, foolish on your part. But you continue to do it. And I never said he was highly functional while stoned. Where do you get this from? I said he is a consistent pot user, which doesn't mean he has to do important tasks while stoned.

 

You continually refuse to state on what basis you're stating your distinctions, even though you attempted to call me out for not defining them. Apparently you knew enough earlier, but not now.

 

As for you, with over 35,000 posts on this board, I would think you'd know how to defend your previous statements, instead of pretending you never made them. Maybe you're just used to ignoring them, or maybe you need a new hobby that doesn't involve active debate on a web forum? They say practice makes perfect, but with as many as you have, you're still pretty far behind.

 

Edit: correction, 35,000 posts. If ever there was a highly functioning message board member, you'd be it.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[section122]

Worst thread ever.

 

Take a bong hit idiots.

 

Seriously.

 

Nightime in Nigeria don't bother with 4merper4mer. He is a troll that is allowed free reign here for some reason. Chef Jim is arguing semantics for god know what reason.

 

Marijuana is an interesting conversation. Older generations bought hook, line, and sinker that it is terrible and good for nothing. I have a long standing belief that the demonizing of marijuana is a huge problem. Kids are told that weed, coke, crack, and heroin are all bad for you and then they experiment with weed. They find out it isn't so bad and wonder if the others are as bad as advertised. I also believe firmly in medicinal purposes as I have seen first hand the relief it allows some people.

[Chef Jim]

Worst thread ever.

 

Take a bong hit idiots.

 

But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.

Saying I have "no idea" and "no proof" after telling you what I know and have known of him is, once again, foolish on your part. But you continue to do it. And I never said he was highly functional while stoned. Where do you get this from? I said he is a consistent pot user, which doesn't mean he has to do important tasks while stoned.

 

 

Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.

 

And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Chef Jim

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.

 

 

Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.

 

And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.

So, you're not done here?

 

When I do restate and refute the argument you're attempting to make, at some point, try to resist the temptation to tweak and alter aspects of it. Again.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[boyst]

I award 2 points Ryan. 1 point Jim. -2 Niagara.

 

 

And weed is stupid. Legalizing it is stupid for many many reasons. But I am for legalizing it so long as penalties are stiff

[Chef Jim]

So, you're not done here?

 

When I do restate and refute the argument you're attempting to make, at some point, try to resist the temptation to tweak and alter aspects of it. Again.

 

I have tweaked nothing. All I've tried to do is figure out how you know your friend is highly functional and you've not been able to do that. So I've given up trying to get you to answer my question.

[coloradobillsfan]

I'm a successful network engineer and a marijuana user. I don't smoke at or before work, just like I wouldn't drink at or before work. But after work and weekends is my time - neither the government (nor anyone else) has any business in it. The only factor I have ever had to worry about was the legality, and I'm happy (and proud) to say that in my state it is now legal. I hope other states follow suit so others like me who want to enjoy marijuana privately can do so without fear of reprisal. This will be my one and only post on this topic.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

I award 2 points Ryan. 1 point Jim. -2 Niagara.

 

 

And weed is stupid. Legalizing it is stupid for many many reasons. But I am for legalizing it so long as penalties are stiff

Great insight. Weed is stupid. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm a successful network engineer and a marijuana user. I don't smoke at or before work, just like I wouldn't drink at or before work. But after work and weekends is my time - neither the government (nor anyone else) has any business in it. The only factor I have ever had to worry about was the legality, and I'm happy (and proud) to say that in my state it is now legal. I hope other states follow suit so others like me who want to enjoy marijuana privately can do so without fear of reprisal. This will be my one and only post on this topic.

According to many here, you don't exist. Not possible. Ask 4mer.

[IDBillzFan]

Once Cali goes adult use it's all over IMO.

 

Cali already went adult use. They just make you pay for a membership card first. Anyone tells you it's 'medical' marijuana is pulling your chain.

[boyst]

Great insight. Weed is stupid. Thanks for the contribution.

 

According to many here, you don't exist. Not possible. Ask 4mer.

what is then point of weed? There is none

[Maury Ballstein]

what is then point of weed? There is none

Oh boy. Try food, entertainment, and sex for starters.

 

But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.

 

 

Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.

 

And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.

 

Weed and coffee pairs well. Allows for "important things" to be accomplished. Couple shots of espresso even better!

 

Not a story. Legalize it for 18 and up. Let's move on.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Ryan L Billz