Dobbed in weed-growing parents

[blackdog]

Gee this thread has started a whole different life of its own. The fact that it's still going (and off the original OP anyway) means that participants must be getting some sort of weird enjoyment out of it. Otherwise it would shrivel, die and be buried, hopefully not to be granted resurrection.

Since the dawn of time, the righteous have tried to convert the heathens. For our own good of course.

Now convert Ed, you heathen damnit.

Edit. I hope that doesn't count as lowering myself to the spineless depths of ridiculing or name calling. I'm trying so hard to hold the moral high ground there.

[Edbear]

What a short memory you have Ed.

No, but then I also read posts before responding to them. Your quote was from a thread nearly three years old and as I said, at that time I was pretty out if it in pain, wearing a brace and requiring a daily nurse....

Of course you may not be referring to that here, but still if anyone of my opponents tried to imitate the other members who do read and comprehend, they may yet gain some credibility.

When "haters" have no interest beyond ridicule and certainly no interest in discussing anything rationally, I have little time for them. These ones think they are clever so as long as they satiate their need to stroke their own egos, they can do it on their own.

Gee this thread has started a whole different life of its own. The fact that it's still going (and off the original OP anyway) means that participants must be getting some sort of weird enjoyment out of it. Otherwise it would shrivel, die and be buried, hopefully not to be granted resurrection.

If Madness is genuine in wanting my opinion on his posted link it will remain on topic and relevant. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and post a reply once I have gone through it. Depending on his response I will either continue or leave the thread.

[Edbear]

More ridicule? Certainly not constructive. But hey, why let the truth get in the way of some good mud slinging.

What part of "they keep demonstrating" is so hard to understand?

[Madness]

If Madness is genuine in wanting my opinion on his posted link it will remain on topic and relevant. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and post a reply once I have gone through it. Depending on his response I will either continue or leave the thread.

I'm genuinely wanting your opinion Ed. Please don't use that in a signature line, there's a good bloke.

[Virago]

...If Madness is genuine in wanting my opinion on his posted link it will remain on topic and relevant. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and post a reply once I have gone through it. Depending on his response I will either continue or leave the thread.

Jeez, Madness - it's all down to you big fulla. Kia kaha, dude...

[Madness]

Jeez, Madness - it's all down to you big fulla. Kia kaha, dude...

It's a lot of pressure alright. Good thing I have some lovely fresh Cannabis to help me ease the stress.

[Pussy]

This is GREAT entertainment! Thanks for being such a bigotted fuckwit, ed... it provides a lot of fun!

[blackdog]

What part of "they keep demonstrating" is so hard to understand?

Now you are quoting the same post twice. Are you losing your faculties or having trouble keeping up through the drug induced haze?

[Virago]

Some should take a deep breath and re-read the thread, this time the actual words written. Sadly for such ones they keep demonstrating their inability to understand plain English.

Unfortunately for you, most of us understand English only too well. Sadly, when you are directly challenged on your use of it, you run away to sulk, and refuse to answer direct questions.

Self-superior and vague condescension is invariably the tactic employed by bigots when backed into a corner.

[Mushu]

Wow, something like 4 pages since I last checked this thread, and I'm starting to feel that I'm missing some of the fun (phone doesn't show peoples sigs) it seems ol' Ed doesn't seem to be getting any smarter or any more tolerant of others opinions, but I am loving how his opinion is automatically fact. (I see he's getting a pretty decent post count out of this thread though)

Funnier that you don't actually read anything before posting crap. I immediately challenge you lot to back your stupid assertions and name-calling with fact. The posts you comment on were only a few posts back each time, if not the immediately previous post. Each and every time you lot fail!

So having discredited yourselves repeatedly and showing how lamely stupid you wish to be seen as, I can ignore you.

I've read everything you have written in this thread Ed, it's so entertaining I wouldn't wanna miss any of your posts, once again you have been quoted over and over again as a hypocrite and a plain idiot, why would I waste my time going back looking at your old posts (much like any joke, you're only funny the first time) especially when I already know your reply, "blah blah context blah" or something along those lines, the only real disappointing part is that there are so many out there like you that the world is fucked no matter what happens.

On the other hand, I've said it before, don't ever change. You, Ed, are by far my favorite KB member, I don't think anybody else here could keep me so entertained for over a week now almost solo (whatever happened to Grubber anyway.) Edit: look at that, 2 weeks almost, how time flys.
Edit 2: removed religion reference in an effort to keep thread out of PD
Sent from my XT535 using Tapatalk 2

[scissorhands]

Its been an exercise in human nature
Ed's prolly a fairly decent person
Sort of neighbour who would be genuinely helpful
Cares for others...

Its just thye religious dogma
Arrogance
Misinformed self righteous outlook [of the holy]
Efforts to extract money from friends
via cheap Chinese shit

But mostly I worry about the children in bible class....

Hey Ed, did the brothers give you a comment??
re:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: LEAP
www.leap.cc/
Current and former members of law enforcement who support drug regulation rather than prohibition.

[Edbear]

One last sop to the idiots, before I ignore them completely. I have emphasised the relevant points.

In a vain attempt to put it in words even they could understand, I sum it up thus.

A/ I make a post.

B/ My idiot opposers attack me personally without addresing the point of the post and call me names and make stupid coments that are totally incorrect.

C/ I immediately challenge them to go over the post and show how it is wrong. They respond with more verbal abuse and decline to back themselves.

D/ I post a link pertinent to the thread topic.

E/ They either ignore it or respond with more personal abuse and name calling.

F/ I challenge them to address the link and show where it is incorrect.

G/ They respond with more verbal abuse and name-calling.

Get the pattern here?

Funnier that you don't actually read anything before posting crap. I immediately challenge you lot to back your stupid assertions and name-calling with fact. The posts you comment on were only a few posts back each time, if not the immediately previous post. Each and every time you lot fail!

So having discredited yourselves repeatedly and showing how lamely stupid you wish to be seen as, I can ignore you.

Resorting to slander, and personal abuse when challenged fools only the idiots posting the crap. Surely must be about time to PD this thread?

I always back myself, or did you miss the link I posted earlier? A few read it and agreed with it, my opponents as usual ignored it. As I said, every time they are challenged directly to either quote me and/or prove my posts wrong they decline to do so, knowing they cannot. How can I take them seriously? They are simply idiots with an agenda that does not include anything like facts or even reality. As I have repeatedly observed, all they have is name-calling and baseless vitriol.

So no quotes then... Why is it that without exception, every time a member is challenged to back their statements about me with, you know, anything like facts, or quotes, they never do?

I know who red reps me, I read the comments in threads, and I get a lot of PM's. Sorry if I take note of actual reality rather than prejudiced fantasy.

If I wanted mind altering experiences I'd never choose Tramadol. No side effects at all for me. Now, Ketamine, that is something else!

Even Morphine only kills pain with me. I've been living with chronic pain for so long I have trouble remembering a time without pain.

Ok so I was teasing... I am not in awe of you, you're too dumb. My very highly qualified Drs. and surgeon, senior nurses, in fact all who treated me are also very experienced in my operation and the extent of my injuries. They have no trouble in assessing my level of pain and disability. CT scans and X-rays, my level of movement are enough for them to believe my own assessment of how much doing whatever hurts. My surgeon even warned me that I would live with pain from then on.

If the Doc can come up with something better with no side effects, why not? I have already said I can cut way down by simply resting instead of getting up and doing stuff. I take it for pain, what is do hard about that to understand?

No, but then I also read posts before responding to them. Your quote was from a thread nearly three years old and as I said, at that time I was pretty out if it in pain, wearing a brace and requiring a daily nurse....

Of course you may not be referring to that here, but still if anyone of my opponents tried to imitate the other members who do read and comprehend, they may yet gain some credibility.

When "haters" have no interest beyond ridicule and certainly no interest in discussing anything rationally, I have little time for them. These ones think they are clever so as long as they satiate their need to stroke their own egos, they can do it on their own.



If Madness is genuine in wanting my opinion on his posted link it will remain on topic and relevant. So I will give him the benefit of the doubt and post a reply once I have gone through it. Depending on his response I will either continue or leave the thread.

Its been an exercise in human nature
Ed's prolly a fairly decent person
Sort of neighbour who would be genuinely helpful
Cares for others...

Its just thye religious dogma
Arrogance
Misinformed self righteous outlook [of the holy]
Efforts to extract money from friends
via cheap Chinese shit

But mostly I worry about the children in bible class....

Hey Ed, did the brothers give you a comment??
re:

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition: LEAP
www.leap.cc/
Current and former members of law enforcement who support drug regulation rather than prohibition.

Funny how I never bring religion into it...

[Banditbandit]

Someone better call the Damage Control Team.

Or move the last four pages into Pointless Drivel ... this tread has got way off topic ... You said/he said/she said .. it has become Pointless Drivel !!!

Silly hats time again ...

[Edbear]

http://www.leap.cc/
"Why Legalize Drugs?

We believe that drug prohibition is the true cause of much of the social and personal damage that has historically been attributed to drug use. It is prohibition that makes these drugs so valuable – while giving criminals a monopoly over their supply. Driven by the huge profits from this monopoly, criminal gangs bribe and kill each other, law enforcers, and children. Their trade is unregulated and they are, therefore, beyond our control.

History has shown that drug prohibition reduces neither use nor abuse. After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes. After a drug dealer is arrested, however, neither the supply nor the demand for drugs is seriously changed. The arrest merely creates a job opening for an endless stream of drug entrepreneurs who will take huge risks for the sake of the enormous profits created by prohibition. Prohibition costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year, yet 40 years and some 40 million arrests later, drugs are cheaper, more potent and far more widely used than at the beginning of this futile crusade.

We believe that by eliminating prohibition of all drugs for adults and establishing appropriate regulation and standards for distribution and use, law enforcement could focus more on crimes of violence, such as rape, aggravated assault, child abuse and murder, making our communities much safer. We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families.

We believe that in a regulated and controlled environment, drugs will be safer for adult use and less accessible to our children. And we believe that by placing drug abuse in the hands of medical professionals instead of the criminal justice system, we will reduce rates of addiction and overdose deaths."

These people have their reasons clearly laid out, and I would like to hear from our own law enforcement officers as to how they see it.

Let's look at the highlighted points. The opening sentence is the one I would like our Police to comment on, do they agree it is prohibition causing the issues around drug taking and its conequences? The officers in this link seem to think so, but what do our police experience on the front line?

Certainly the criminals supplying the drugs make a lot of money, but who forces the users to buy/take the drugs? Or do the users buy/take them on their own intitiative? Like cigarettes, do the tobacco companies hold a gun to the heads of addicts and force them to buy?

"After a rapist is arrested, there are fewer rapes" Bollocks. There are fewer rapes than drug users getting stoned and causing issues, irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone following the news would see that.

Yes, prohibition does cost a lot and yes, drugs are cheaper, more potent and more widely used. Is it prohibition causing this, or are more people using drugs? Society in general is breaking down with big increases in a lot of negative activity these days. Not just drugs but also alcoholism, binge drinking, random violence, home invasions and gang wars.

Alcohol is legal and "strictly controlled" by legislation. What makes you think legalising Cannabis will result in anything else? Yes, this site is about legalising, not decriminalising, and as you like to point out, there is a difference, how do you see this link?

"We believe that sending parents to prison for non-violent personal drug use destroys families" Certainly doesn't help them, anyway. How many people here are imprisoned for non-violent, personal use?

"A regulated and controlled environment" has done nothing for alcohol abuse and the victimising of children, neither would it make a difference to drug use. It would not cost any less either.

I have said many times, that I have no issues with the potential benefits of Cannabis being researched and developed, even to the point that if it was available as a legal alternative painkiller and was more effective with less side effects than other drugs, I would be happy to use it. Of course that wouldn't suit the proponents here who simply want to smoke it and get high.

That is why I call them hypocrites, when they use arguments based on potential health benefits to support their vew. They are not interested in health benefits.

So to sum up, the link is flawed in several areas and legalising the use of Cannabis would not change anything. Decriminilising it,

(Wikipedia.Decriminalization or Decriminalisation is the abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts, perhaps retroactively, though perhaps regulated permits or fines might still apply (for contrast, see: Legalization). The reverse process is criminalization.

Decriminalization reflects changing social and moral views. A society may come to the view that an act is not harmful, should no longer be criminalized, or is otherwise not a matter to be addressed by the criminal justice system.)

We already have a defacto decriminilising of personal use and few are given severe penalties for simply smoking a joint. Like the speed limit there is a tolerance towards minor offending. I think, from memory, there is already a type of such in Australia where instant fines are handed out rather than arresting and taking them to court? Correct me if I am wrong here. How many really think such would make any difference here?

The fact that I prefer to go by clinical test results and not anecdotal "evidence" by users in deciding whether I think Cannabis is harmless or not is my prerogative.

All drugs have an effect and all drugs should be used accordingly. Not all drugs affect everyone in the same way, and each person should examine his own response to a drug under medical guidance before deciding whether they should use it or not. Certain drugs that may be fatal for one person may have negligible effect on another, even in the same family.

So I don't support the decriminilising of Cannabis as it would not make any difference. I note that proponents of it do not use alcohol as an example of the benefits of such, either.

If you want to smoke a joint in your own home and get high, it is not my problem any more than if you want to get drunk at home. Both are inherently harmful to a greater or lesser extent, backed up by clinical studies.

[Katman]

These people have their reasons clearly laid out, and I would like to hear from our own law enforcement officers as to how they see it.

Let's look at the highlighted points. The opening sentence is the one I would like our Police to comment on, do they agree it is prohibition causing the issues around drug taking and its conequences? The officers in this link seem to think so, but what do our police experience on the front line?

I would suggest that if you're really expecting any current police officer on here to do anything other than toe the company line you're being extremely naive.

What I would like to ask of any of the police officers on here is what percentage of problems they face "on the front line" regarding alcohol abuse compared to cannabis use?

And I'd be interested to hear the answer of anyone here in the medical profession also.