I said I would post pics of my grow with a fucking sign that says whatever you want it to say. Learn to read, and I aced my english classes. I consider myself a pretty good writer, as did my profs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theduderino
Printable View
I said I would post pics of my grow with a fucking sign that says whatever you want it to say. Learn to read, and I aced my english classes. I consider myself a pretty good writer, as did my profs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Theduderino
Funny, haven't noticed with all your spelling errors :dance: . Well, I'm done with you. You're already buried in cement..Quote:
Originally Posted by tadaa
The Duderino
p.s. Well, at least I got a good laugh. Been a while since I've met someone as stupid as you. Wait, my bad, you're even dumber, HAHAHAHA :dance: !
Do you guys just all have PMS or something?
Tadaa didn't read the footnotes to begin with; therefore he made a few dumb posts. Eventually he provided what looked to be a few study results, so shut up about it. I've said this before but I guess it wasn't read: negative is an opinion; therefore it can't be proven that there are negative side effects of smoking; but obviously there are some effects that people would rather not get, like bronchitis.
Anyone who says there are no negative side effects either loves bronchitis or is a dumbass. Anyone who refuses to read footnotes then refuses to read posts saying to read footnotes is a dumbass. Anyone who demands links incessantly is a dumbass. Anyone who refuses to give any links is a dumbass. Anyone who thinks marijuana is physically addictive (litterally addictive) or thinks marijuana is any more psychologically addictive (the bs addiction) than chocolate is either misinformed or a dumbass, respectively.
Finally, anyone who says the pamphlet would be better if it were less biased... shut the hell up already! I admit it is to an extent biased, but it is no less biased than presenting any random list of facts. Just because it shows both sides of marijuana doesn't make it more biased, even though it looks more pro-legalization, because it is closer to being unbiased. I can understand how simple-minded fools would immediately call it biased because it is much more balanced than what is put out by the Gov't, but I can't understand how an intelligent person could call it more biased just because it also lists the positive things of marijuana.
yes sir, mr eddie sir
Well, I'm gonna play for the other team, for a second, eddie, and say that because our natural melatonin levels are our "rhythm of life", I'd like to hear some input about raising your melatonin levels above your natural peak level, before you reach it at puberty.
That could be the reason why pot is different to different people.
If my posts were going to be graded then maybe I would put more time into making sure everything is spelled correctly:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Theduderino
Dude...you flat out used the WRONG word. End of story. Don't make fun or bitch at or belittle someone who claims to have a 4.0 if you don't know the difference between accept and except. That's all I'm saying. So go smoke a bowl or something and take the corncob out.
I agree. Using except instead of accept or the opposite proves you have no understanding of the English language. It's quite sad.
Our president was a C student at Harvard, what's your point? I'm sure mis-using the word except is really going to hurt me financially in the future :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by eddievanzant
the point is shut up unless you can take it...
you made fun of people for getting a 4.0 and now are saying it doesn't matter?? you're ignorant!!! We're not trying to attack you, you just keep asking for it...
He said he got a 4.0 in High School, which isn't much to brag about. I never made fun of it-apparently you can't read.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
There's some good info with a ton of references, seems to me there's plenty of side effects.
Of course there are side-effects. I don't understand where the debate has gone. If you're going to argue about whether or not weed has bad side-effects, you must go to the core of the issue: someone who enjoys bronchitis wouldn't consider it a negative side effect.
Someone who has bronchitis, didn't get it from marijuana.
And the debate has been the "negative" side effects. There are none.
I mean, euphoria is a side-effect. Are you guys that stupid to think that we say there are none?
The pamphlet I'm encouraging people to spread says that marijuana can give people bronchitis, which makes sense immediately. You should provide a link to a study that proves marijuana smoking can't give people bronchitis. Obviously people can bake with it, but not everyone does, so the effects of smoking should be taken into account.
I think that Tadaa would make a very good soccer mom.
Here's Erowid:Quote:
Originally Posted by eddievanzant
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...is_myth4.shtml
It says, "the only prospective clinical study shows no increased risk of crippling pulmonary disease (chronic bronchitis and emphysema)."
Marijuana contains THC. THC is a bronchial dilator, which means it works like a cough drop and opens up your lungs, which aids clearance of smoke and dirt. Nicotine does just the opposite; it makes your lungs bunch up and makes it harder to cough anything up.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabi...bis_faq1.shtml
Good. You proved marijuana can't give you bronchitis because it affects the large airways and not the small ones; however, right above that, it says this:
Frequent marijuana smokers experience adverse respiratory symptoms from smoking, including chronic cough, chronic phlegm, and wheezing.
1. That's because many pot-smokers, frequent or not, also smoke cigarettes.
2. As it says, the ONLY prospective clinical study proves that false.
3. And that statement is correct, taken in the right context.
My neighbors would think that I have chronic cough. That's how I get the chronic phlegm, that causes wheezing, out.
(If you hear your neighbor cough, heavily, even a few times, every day, you'll think that his/her's cough is chronic.)
Okay, what about marijuana users' risk of having a heart attack quadrupling in the first half-hour after use?
what exactly is your motivation for doing this here? it sounds like freevibe.com would suit you better...
Almost all of my friends smoke weed, and none of us smoke cigarettes. I actually do not know any stoners who do. All I am saying is, I think it is pretty obvious that you often pull stuff out of your ass to back your shit up.Quote:
1. That's because many pot-smokers, frequent or not, also smoke cigarettes.
If someone says there is no negative side-effects to marijuana smoking, that person will not be taken seriously in any debate having to do with the legality of marijuana and isn't helping legalize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by del...
What are the negative side effects? You can't say that it makes you lazy. And you can't say that smoking anything is bad for you because smoking marijuana has not been proven to do any harm in the proper clinical studies.
Someone who says the there are negative side-effects to Herb, and can't prove them, has no place trying to get it legalized.
You want a negative aspect of herb?
It's biologically wrong for adolescents to smoke weed. It messes with a lot of natural cycles.
And let's see a study on that quadrupling heart thing.
Of course, but it will also give you a quadrupling dull heart rate, also.
If i handed one of them to my teachers i'd proberly either get kicked out the school or get drug tested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana
PLENTY of sources there for you to see.
Will you quit it with that brilliant find of yours, tadaa!!!
We're well aware of Wikipedia. The references are interesting. They don't say anything about negative side-effects, except all the ones which I have proven wrong through threads like this one, you stupid moron.
You have to use studies that haven't been proven wrong, or references that haven't.
The fact is YOU don't show these studies.
They don't make sense, because doctors have proved them false.
You're so great, here's the references.
1. ↑ Hemp Species. URL accessed on 2006-03-25.
2. ↑ "Cannabis compound benefits blood vessels", Nature (magazine), 2005-04-04.
3. ↑ "Spray alternative to pot on the market in Canada", 2005-06-23.
4. ↑ Europe: Sativex Coming to England, Spain. URL accessed on 2006-03-25.
5. ↑ State Medical Marijuana Laws. URL accessed on 2006-4-12.
6. ↑ FindLaw U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative. URL accessed on 2006-03-25.
7. ↑ Controlled Substances Act. 21 USCS § 801. United States Drug Enforcement Agency. URL accessed on November 4, 2005.
8. ↑ Block RI, Farinpour R & Braverman K. (1992). "Acute effects of marijuana on cognition: relationships to chronic effects and smoking techniques". Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behaviour 43(3): 907 â?? 917.
9. ↑
10. ↑ Fred Gardner, "Marijuana Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer", 2006-07-06. UNIQ261f5e937ee6df3b-HTMLCommentStrip8dbaf6061ea4ed000000004
11. ↑ Louise Arseneault, Mary Cannon, Richie Poulton, Robin Murray, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E Moffitt (2002). "Cannabis use in adolescence and risk for adult psychosis: longitudinal prospective study". British Medical Journal.
12. ↑ Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Mary Cannon, Joseph McClay, Robin Murray, HonaLee Harrington, Alan Taylor, Louise Arseneault, Ben Williams, Antony Braithwaite, Richie Poulton, and Ian W. Craig (January 2005). "Moderation of the Effect of Adolescent-Onset Cannabis Use on Adult Psychosis by a Functional Polymorphism in the catechol-O-Methyltransferase Gene:Longitudinal Evidence of a Gene X Environment Interaction". Society of Biological Psychiatry.
13. ↑ Cécile Henquet, Lydia Krabbendam, Janneke Spauwen, Charles Kaplan, Roselind Lieb, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen and Jim van Os (2004). "Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people". British Medical Journal 330 (11).
14. ↑ G C Patton, Carolyn Coffey, J B Carlin, Louisa Degenhardt, Micheal Lynskey and Wayne Hall (2005). "Cannabis use and mental health in young people: cohort study". British Medical Journal 325 (1195).
15. ↑ J.S. Hayes, R. Lampart, M.C. Dreher, L. Morgan (1991). "Five-year follow-up of rural Jamaican children whose mothers used marijuana during pregnancy". West Indian Medical Journal 40 (3): 120-3.
16. ↑ M.C. Dreher, K. Nugent, R. Hudgins (1994). "Prenatal Marijuana Exposure and Neonatal Outcomes in Jamaica: An Ethnographic Study". Pediatrics 93 (3): 254-260.
17. ↑ Positive and negative cerebral symptoms: the roles of Russell Reynolds and Hughlings Jackson. URL accessed on 2006-03-25.
18. ↑ Patrick O'Driscoll. Denver votes to legalize marijuana possession. URL accessed on 2005-03-11.
19. ↑ Dutch Politicians Seek Marijuana Rules. URL accessed on 2006-02-25.
20. ↑ Marijuana fight nears. URL accessed on 2006-02-17.
21. ↑ Home Office- Class B to Class C. URL accessed on 2006-03-27.
Try to make a relevant point, you lazy old lady.
Tadaa, do you know how to get to wikipedia, and read, and comprehend it?
You're not even making it interesting, anymore. Go to bed.
Do I look like a old lady you fucking deuche bag?Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
Can't see the pic. Sorry.
lol, riiight.Quote:
Originally Posted by beachguy in thongs
Well try this then
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y23...Picture014.jpg
Why can't you point out these facts, then?
I am not pulling anything out of my ass. I can get that off sites. But, anything else, I prove with links. If you think I'm pulling it out of my ass, then show me what you think I pulled out of my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by zalami128
Now, if I have to find a link just to show percentages of cannabis smokers who smoke cigarettes, even one, then I'll waste a shitload of time proving something that doesn't even need to be proved because I've explained that it could be other ways.
I don't know why you enter in and say that I "often" pull stuff out of my ass, because if you knew that was true then you could prove it.
You pulled that out of your ass.
What do you mean? Point out what facts?
Side effects should have ZERO impact on legalization. It doesn't matter how good or bad it is, it's about freedom of choice. ALL drugs should be legal, no matter how good or bad. The fact that you're arguing that pot isn't very bad at all has NOTHING to do with this subject and is the WRONG way to go about legalization.
It's my body, I should be able to shoot heroin, smoke crack or anything else as long as it's in the privacy of my own home. You need to concentrate on freedom of choice, rights, not the drug itself.
I did a debate back in highschool on this and my only point to the class was that every single thing the other side is going to tell you is 100% irrelevant because it doesn't matter what the side effects are, it's wrong to make any drug illegal.
Now, you're going in a whole new direction.
tadaa, is it so hard to admit defeat or that you're totally wrong?
Serious, maybe someone needs to hit you with that large twig you are holding in your picture, you sickly piece of shit.
Um sickly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Its a Plant
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y23...Picture009.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y237/lheaxhuns/5.jpg
If I'm sickly I'd sure like to see your pics. I didn't know 190lbs at 11% bodyfat was sickly.
And I'm sure you can deadlift a lot more than 405lbs too, right?
WoW, 190 lbs! I didn't know they piled shit that high.
haha, did you take those just now to try and prove me wrong?
Don't be so offended if someone calls you a name. Quit trying to stray away from the debate, seeing as your backed into a corner. And if I wasn't so convinced you were gay, I'd think you were hitting on me. ;)
And I bet I could deadlift more than 405. Who couldn't with this hot 191 lb. bod and 10% body fat? I lift for more than staring at myself in the mirror, however.
Tadaa you look like Timothy Mcveigh in a way..what is the work ..skinhead?:confused: