How We Protect At-Risk Kids.

[Salty]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html

Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.

After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.

and?

I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.

I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band.

I am so glad to see that smooth jazz dig really got your goat. You always get super passive aggressive when you get your fee fees hurt.

But you were saying something about rubber and glue...

ETA: And pedantic.

[AFK]

Uh, no, I've always taken jabs at ECH for liking In Flames. 


I've always worn my love of smooth jazz on my sleeve.  And hair metal. 


But In Flames really is a shitty band.  They weren't even very good when they actually were a death metal band.  At The Gates and Dark Tranquility did that style much, much better.

[East Coast Hustle]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html

Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.

After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.

and?

I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.

I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band. 

No, the funniest part is you assuming that anyone else would react the way you would to something as trivial as having their musical tastes challenged.

[East Coast Hustle]

Uh, no, I've always taken jabs at ECH for liking In Flames. 


I've always worn my love of smooth jazz on my sleeve.  And hair metal. 


But In Flames really is a shitty band.  They weren't even very good when they actually were a death metal band.  At The Gates and Dark Tranquility did that style much, much better.

Even if I cared what someone else thought of a band I like (and why on earth would I do that?), I'm pretty sure I wouldn't include fans of smooth jazz in the circle of people whose opinions I cared about.

[P3nT4gR4m]

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,30734.0.html

Just found out they're playing the Roseland in Portland on February 1st.

After I spent 15 minutes popping a massive boner and shitting myself with glee, I started working on a resume tailored towards getting a death metal band to hire me as their personal chef.

and?

I'm not knocking you for being a fan, I'm knocking you for being such a pretentious douchewit about it.

I think maybe the funniest part is anyone still referring to In Flames as a death metal band. 

No, the funniest part is you assuming that anyone else would react the way you would to something as trivial as having their musical tastes challenged.

Quickly, to the google-images-mobile! We need an emote. It shall be called  :enki: and it shall sum up that dumbass pedantic thing he said that roont whatever joke it was cos of whatever dumbfuck reason he gave. And I shall totally zing RWTF with it and there shall be laughing and mittens and backslapping and we'll share a moment we can all tell our grandkids about. And they'll say to us "Who was ROFFS?" and we'll reply "He's the reason you got flung in sing sing for pilfering grandad's roaches" and then the buzzer will go and we'll still be chuckling as we walk back out through the gate in the chainlink fence.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Well isn't this goddamn interesting.

http://screen.yahoo.com/pot-not-gateway-drug-discovery-130000568.html

I'm sure that RWHN won't watch any of it and yet have a reasonable explanation for everything in it.

There's even a little bit on scientists and policy makers.

[Pergamos]

Actually im not changing the subject at all since the documentation you refuse to provide was part of the same post about mocking you for alluding to your sex life which may or may not exist.

S t r e t c h

Anyway, I have to say I find it amusing that in pretty much every drug thread I've been in someone decides to somehow work my sex life into the thread.  It's a little odd and it kind of creeps me out a bit.  I'd be curious as to why you guys feel the need to go there.  What does it say about the group?

sex and drugs and rock and roll...

[Pergamos]

Also just saying i dont doubt your girlfriend exists. You seem to be conflating me with everyone else. So. No inconsistency there.

Well you seem to be going along with the crowd in every other way so you'd understand why it would easy to be confused.

Now whos seeing pentagons?

The endless riffing on the bad coffee joke wasn't encouraged by group dynamics?

I wasn't joking.  I don't see how you can support unrestricted access to caffeine for adults, and not be strongly opposed to caffeine vending machines in schools while also supporting marijuana prohibition.  Caffeine is more addictive than marijuana.

Here's an actual comparison of the two

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/15136/caffeine-may-be-more-dangerous-than-marijuana

I'm trying to find the studies where they compared addictive potential of the two, I know the NIHA rated Caffeine as more addictive.  All I am finding is forum posts and blogs though. 

[Pergamos]

No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.

That science that you refuse to link to.

The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here) is that it is as addictive as gambling or online gaming and as long as you keep being shifty with actual links to hard evidence that's going to keep being the opinion.

Of course addictions to both those things can adversely affect people's lives, as can marijuana addiction, but that doesn't warrant prohibition, nor does science show that prohibition helps to decrease addiction rates (in fact, it seems to show the opposite)

[Pergamos]

No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.

But no documentation is available.

Sure it is.  I provide it everytime we talk about it.  You won't even consider it.

Too far. No one on the planet is this obtuse. The scale of troll vs guy who doesn't actually understand what documentation is keeps tipping.

Here is some (cited) science for you.
http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive
[/size]

look at that!  A link that states that marijuana addiction has the same symptoms as gambling or online gaming addiction!

(not that they mention those two things, you have to actually work that out by looking at the literature on them)

[Pergamos]

Legalization does nothing to resolve your last point as it would still be illegal for kids 21 and younger.


I happen to agree that reforms are necessary to eliminate those black marks for non-violent youth offenders.  But legalization does not accomplish that without making it also legal for youth to use.

It does if it is legalized the same way that Alcohol is.  Minor in Posession does not create that sort of black mark.

[Pergamos]

Legalization will do nothing to end, nor even curtail, organized crime.  Criminal organizations that traffick marijuana are very well diversified today.  Not just drugs, but also human trafficking, weapons. 


It's a myth that marijuana legalization will have any impact on that.

Just like if we made it so grocery stores couldn't sell food, that wouldn't hurt their bottom line a bit.  Since they sell other things besides food. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.

That science that you refuse to link to.

The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here) is that it is as addictive as gambling or online gaming and as long as you keep being shifty with actual links to hard evidence that's going to keep being the opinion.

Of course addictions to both those things can adversely affect people's lives, as can marijuana addiction, but that doesn't warrant prohibition, nor does science show that prohibition helps to decrease addiction rates (in fact, it seems to show the opposite)

This is more or less how I see marijuana addiction, incidentally. It's not addiction to the chemical itself, but an addiction to the sensation, or something like that. I don't know, I've never been addicted to marijuana or gambling. Gambling addicts irritate me because they always make me wait in line at the store while they play their scratchies. Potheads don't irritate me because they're usually at home staying out of everyone's way.

[AFK]

No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.

The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)

I see, so PD.COM = science now eh?  I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.

[Pergamos]

No, science explains why marijuana addiction is a problem.

The general understanding of the scientific consensus on marijuana (at least by the people here)

I see, so PD.COM = science now eh?  I wonder how many points one would lose on a paper if they actually tried to cite this source in a research paper.

My point was more that the people involved in this conversation have a certain understanding of the scienctific consensus.  And that you have completely failed to produce any convincing arguements to the contrary, partly due to your attitude toward actual evidence.