Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#320 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
Lol I smoke weed and i hate it when people say that. They are to us what gay bashers are to Christians. Stupid people who we are not responsible for lol.
#326 to #320 - anon (04/24/2013) [-]
You know someone had a convincing argument when the first and last word is "lol".

Frankly, weed is dangerous. Not as much as cocaine, but probably a close to alchohol.
#331 to #326 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
Shut the **** up anon. I'm warning you that after this i will not comment again. Frankly, I'm sick of trying to argue with dumb asses like you, because I've learned from experience that you will never admit you're wrong. If you think that weed is anywhere near as dangerous as alchohol, then you're ******* retarded. The only reason i put the "lols" is so that people wouldn't think I was some butthurt offended stoner, because I'm not. I was simply agreeing with this post.
User avatar #349 to #331 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
You sound a hell of a lot like a butthurt offended stoner to me.

It isn't as bad as alcohol, but sure as hell isn't good for you, so stop acting like it is just because it isn't the most efficient way of killing yourself in your childish search for a different state of consciousness just because you can't find satisfaction with the one you're in.

Then again, I don't even smoke, so.....
#357 to #349 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
That sir. Is THE MOST ignorant assumption that people make about weed smokers. Congratulations, you won the prize. I can't speak for all weed smokers, but nobody i know smokes weed to escape from reality. It's just a fun thing people do with their friends. You're letting propaganda like Above The Influence get to you too much. And weed doesn't kill you by the way... even most anti weed people accept that as fact...
User avatar #363 to #357 - XzmanX (04/24/2013) [-]
Congratulations, you just won the award for being a pissed of little prick
User avatar #362 to #357 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
No, you ******* idiot, that isn't it at all.

Weed IS finding a different state of consciousness. Day-dreaming is a different state of consciousness. Spinning around in circles on the playground is a different state of consciousness. Seeking them out is a natural thing that all people do in some way or another.

It's the fact that you haven't grown up enough that you still so desperately NEED to find a more pleasurable state of consciousness than the one you are already in, like how children do in the playground or a person does when faced with an incredibly arduous task, not because you have work to do, but because you are still that much of a ******* kid, that I find it sad.

It isn't an assumption, it's a simple fact.
#365 to #362 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
Okay. I never said that weed wasn't finding a different state of conciousness. It's the fact that you ASSUME ( <--- check it out it's that word we were talking about) that we need to. Like i said, it's for fun.
User avatar #367 to #365 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
" I can't speak for all weed smokers, but nobody i know smokes weed to escape from reality. "

This is a direct copy paste of you claiming that smoking weed isn't entering a different state of consciousness, i.e. escaping from reality.

It's for fun, but it also kills you; That isn't fun. There's a hell of a lot of things that are not only fun for you, they are good for you too, as well as legal, and bring on a hell of a lot more of a rush than weed ever will.

Ever try Fencing? Rock climbing? Writing a novel, reading one, or survivalist camping?

Now THAT is fun. This is my problem; There are plenty of ways to have fun that don't risk being caught by the authorities and don't cause damage to your body, yet, as we've established before, you're too childish to see passed that, because smoking pot is an easier way to enter a different state of consciousness.
#374 to #367 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
Entering a different state of consciousness is a completely different thing than escaping from reality, for one reason. The word escape implies that we need to run away from reality, like reality is bad or something. You're trying to make it seem like if you ever smoke weed, then after that your entire life revolves around it and you always need to be high. That's not true at all. I have no problem with reality. My girlfriend doesn't smoke weed, but i love going on dates with her because she makes me happy. That's part of my reality. Why would i need to escape from that? And no one uses weed for a "rush". Weed makes you calm, not in a rush. And using the "its illegal argument" is just plain stupid. The government is not always right. Remember how slavery used to be legal? The reason you keep calling me childish is because you're mad you can't come up with any good arguments. By the way; people who die from smoking weed every year: 0, average number of people who die from rock climing every year: 25. Dumb **** . Do some research before you come at me with a retarded argument like that. And by the way, implying that i don't read? Insulting. I love reading. **** you. And even if everything you said was true (which its definately not) why do you have to yell at me? What did I, weed, or other weed smokers ever do to you to make you so mad?
User avatar #375 to #374 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
No, actually, it's not. The word escape implies exactly what it means, that you've left that state of consciousness. It doesn't mean or say that reality is bad, it says you're trying to leave it, and you do.

You're missing the point; when I say 'rush' I'm not claiming weed excites you, I'm claiming that these other activities are more fun.

By the way; People who die from smoking weed every year; Isn't 0. No one ODs on weed, but it is a proven carcinogen, meaning every pothead who has died of lung cancer, which is plenty, have all died from smoking weed. Indirectly you say? Yeah, about as indirectly as cigarettes, even if weed is less potent.

The 'illegal' argument isn't stupid, it's regarding basic moral fiber. Yeah, the government isn't always right, but flouting the law because you think it's wrong IS wrong. You don't break the rules set by society just because you don't like them, and if you do, you get your ass tossed in jail. That's what I'm saying, and that proves further that I'm not calling you a child because I can't make a good argument, I'm calling you a child because you're willing to break the law and risk years in jail for the sake of having a little fun.

By the way, I wasn't implying that you don't read, I was implying that reading is a more productive way to spend your time and have fun than smoking pot.

Not to mention, what the hell do you mean do some research? I didn't come at you with an argument about people dying from weed, I came at you with an argument about weed being a ****** way to have fun. Are you signing out so you can comment as an anonymous so it seems like more people are on your side?

Really though, if I didn't think I was making a good argument, why would I argue at all? My points are valid, none of them have you once disproven rather than angrily stated your opinion about, and you're calling them bad arguments without refuting any of them properly doesn't make them so.
#403 to #375 - nickmandemon (04/30/2013) [-]
Escape implies that you need to get away. I don't know how to explain that differently. And if you smoke pot you would understand that all this "leaving reality" stuff that you're talking about is a little ridiculous. Thats a better argument against something like lsd or something like that. And great for you if you think that those activities are more fun. Thats what you like to do and I'm not going to criticize you for it, unlike the way you're treating me for smoking "pot". And for you're information, weed has never killed anyone. That is one of the biggest arguments for its legalization. And regarding the legal issue; I don't know where you live, but I live in America, which was FOUNDED on the belief that if there is a law that the majority of the country doesn't agree with, then we have the right to change it. And if i enjoy smoking marijuana, I'm not gonna ******* wait for the government lollygagging and taking forever with legalization. And if flouting the law because you don't agree with it is wrong... are you calling people like Harriet Tubman bad people? Of course, I'm not comparing myself to her, I'm just asking you to defend what you said. And if you've admitted that you've never smoked weed, how do you know it's a ****** way to have fun? You sound like a person with a very narrow minded manner of thinking. And if I'm childish for having fun with risks, rather than spending my life surrounded by caution and metaphorical pillows, then so be it. Fun's best when it's spiked with danger. Maybe one day you will realize this, and i believe that day will be a great turning point in your life. I don't know why other people doing what they like to do bothers you so much, but maybe you should think about how it would feel if someone just started yelling at you and criticizing you about the way you live your life when they don't even know you as a person. And by the way, I've deftly refuted every argument you've presented. I literally address everything you say.
#361 to #357 - anon (04/24/2013) [-]
Show one case of a person dying directly from weed.
User avatar #364 to #361 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
No one directly dies from anything. You don't die from a car accident, you die from your lungs collapsing when your ribs get smashed IN the accident.

You don't die from a bullet, you die from bleeding out or severe trauma CAUSED by the bullet.

Weed has been proven to have carcinogens in it. Go find a case of someone who has lung-cancer that also smokes pot. I'm sure there's plenty of them. All of them died, and it can be linked to weed. Is it the direct cause? Is it even the main cause? No, but it did directly make things worse.
#369 to #364 - anon (04/24/2013) [-]
"No one dies directly from anything"
So, deadly lung cancer isn't directly tied to smoking cigarettes? Literally overdosing on cocaine, or heroin, or meth or any other drug that is actually dangerous doesn't count as a direct death?
Yea, no **** there's people who have lung cancer and smoke pot, doesn't take a ****** genius to figure that out. But if the weed didn't cause the cancer, why is there a problem? Why are cigarettes widely available and even subsidized by the government when they directly cause 100's of thousands of people to die each year? Yet weed, which (believe it or not) doesn't have a single death associated with it ever, is still illegal?
User avatar #370 to #369 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
Deadly lung cancer is directly tied to smoking cigarettes, but it's the AFFECTS of lung cancer that kills you, not the cancer itself, just like an overdose's AFFECTS kill you, the overdose doesn't.

But you're the one who decided to be a technical asswipe about it and asked for one case of a person dying directly from smoking weed.

Weed has had deaths associated with it, as I said, it's been proven a carcinogen, and hence has ties to lung cancer. If a man who smokes pot gets lung cancer, he likely got lung cancer from smoking pot, even if that isn't what it says on the tin.

Cigarettes are widely available and subsidized by the government because they are a major cash crop, and in addition to that so many people are addicted to them now that if they were made illegal, we'd just see Prohibition all over again, crime and smuggling rates would sky-rocket, and they'd be back in two years anyhow. That's why.

The weed DID cause the cancer, in the same way that cigarettes cause cancer, in that they introduce carcinogens to the body. The only difference is the potency levels, but that doesn't mean that a man who smokes that dies from lung cancer died from cigarettes directly, it means he died from lung cancer caused by cigarettes, just how people die from lung cancer caused by weed.
User avatar #371 to #370 - sorrowofdaedalus (04/24/2013) [-]
EFFECTS. ** My bad.
#336 to #334 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
Whatever... I guess i just have to accept that the majority of the people on this site are just ignorant and very adamant about staying that way. I don't understand why people who smoke weed get so much hate on this site. What is your problem? Did your dad smoke weed and like not pay enough attention you you? God I am sick of this.
User avatar #341 to #336 - mrastrozombie (04/24/2013) [-]
I smoke weed, but you don't see me comparing it to gays getting hated on. That **** is nothing compared to the low level of intolerance that stoners get. No one I know was killed because he liked smoking weed.
#348 to #341 - nickmandemon (04/24/2013) [-]
I didn't compare the treatment gay people get to the treatment stoners get at all. In any way. You made that assumption yourself. I'm saying that you can't categorize a whole group of people by the stupid things that some of the people in that group do. That's all.
User avatar #373 to #348 - mrastrozombie (04/24/2013) [-]
my bad i read that **** wrong, but I still stand by what I said.
User avatar #340 to #336 - XzmanX (04/24/2013) [-]
Calm the **** down bro, I didn't even argue against you
 Friends (0)