This Ought to Make the Libertarians Happy

[AUChizad]

I'm sure that's why it was asked.  Because you thought I may have the data on it.
Righhhhhhhhhhhht. 

Then why ask?

I don't understand how you think I'm the butthurt one in this situation.

I presented factual, recently released data disproving your hypothesis. You asked if I had data from Washington, as if there is some but I'm just choosing to ignore it. The implication was that there is some data on Washington that contradicts what I presented. I'm saying if that data exists, I'd absolutely like to see it. If not, why are we talking about some nonexistent data in the first place?

[Saniflush]

Then why ask?

I don't understand how you think I'm the butthurt one in this situation.

I presented factual, recently released data disproving your hypothesis. You asked if I had data from Washington, as if there is some but I'm just choosing to ignore it. The implication was that there is some data on Washington that contradicts what I presented. I'm saying if that data exists, I'd absolutely like to see it. If not, why are we talking about some nonexistent data in the first place?

Let's start slow...

First off, not my hypothesis. 

Second, I don't know if you are butthurt or not.  Only you and your butt can answer that.

Third, the only reason I asked for data from Washington was to see if the data was holding true in the only other legalized state.

Fourth, why would I not ask the person who obviously is more concerned with this issue than almost anyone else on the board? You felt the need to bring up quotes from five years ago so this is obviously a sensitive issue for you (and possibly your butt).

[Tiger Wench]

Then why ask?

I don't understand how you think I'm the butthurt one in this situation.

I presented factual, recently released data disproving your hypothesis. You asked if I had data from Washington, as if there is some but I'm just choosing to ignore it. The implication was that there is some data on Washington that contradicts what I presented. I'm saying if that data exists, I'd absolutely like to see it. If not, why are we talking about some nonexistent data in the first place?

Um, hang on Mr Conspiracy Theory.  You are jumping to some conclusions. 

He asked a simple question.  "Got any data from Washington?"  Not because he already knew the answer, but because he figured someone like you who is all over this pro/con argument would have that info at your fingertips.  You had several possible responses, any of which could have been correct.

1.  No, you only looked at Colorado data.
2.  Yes, you looked at Washington data as well, but it was pretty much the same as Colorado and you were already hinging on TL;DR territory, so you didn't mention it.
3.  Yes, you looked at Washington data but chose not to mention it because it did not support the Colorado data, and you wanted to make a statement without silly facts and figures clouding the issue.

Accusing him of some grand plot against you when few others saw it that way is the sign of a delusional mind.  You smoking a Sherm?

Sani's point is that you can't make an assumption based on one set of data points.  Scientists run an experiment multiple times to corroborate their findings.  Some scientists do nothing but repeat other folks experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove them. One set of findings from Colorado does not a hard and firm factual case make.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled toke of generic unaltered pot.

[GH2001]

Um, hang on Mr Conspiracy Theory.  You are jumping to some conclusions. 

He asked a simple question.  "Got any data from Washington?"  Not because he already knew the answer, but because he figured someone like you who is all over this pro/con argument would have that info at your fingertips.  You had several possible responses, any of which could have been correct.

1.  No, you only looked at Colorado data.
2.  Yes, you looked at Washington data as well, but it was pretty much the same as Colorado and you were already hinging on TL;DR territory, so you didn't mention it.
3.  Yes, you looked at Washington data but chose not to mention it because it did not support the Colorado data, and you wanted to make a statement without silly facts and figures clouding the issue.

Accusing him of some grand plot against you when few others saw it that way is the sign of a delusional mind.  You smoking a Sherm?

Sani's point is that you can't make an assumption based on one set of data points.  Scientists run an experiment multiple times to corroborate their findings.  Some scientists do nothing but repeat other folks experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove them. One set of findings from Colorado does not a hard and firm factual case make.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled toke of generic unaltered pot.

I took Chad's post as a RESPONSE to GarMan's initial assumption that anywhere pot was legalized would be mass chaos. His post just pointed out that GarMan's intial assumption was not true - regardless of whats happening in Washington. Whats happened in Colorado does in fact prove GarMan's theory wrong.

Now, Washington may very well be in more turmoil than Colorado in re to pot, but that still doesn't make the aforementioned statement any less true.

[Snaggletiger]

I took Chizzy's post to mean we should all get together and do several bong hits of premo Columbian.

I took Sani's comment to mean young girls are hot and they need their collards stirred.

amirite?

[GH2001]

I took Chizzy's post to mean we should all get together and do several bong hits of premo Columbian.

I took Sani's comment to mean young girls are hot and they need their collards stirred.

amirite?

I took Snags comment to mean, is GH gonna have to cut a bitch up in here?

[Tiger Wench]

Temporary hijack:  I have never smoked pot.  I am quite old enough for it to have been a thing for my generation and those since, but my dad was an undercover narc for most of my childhood, and with law enforcement connections all over the damn place.  He would probably STILL know if I did it.  My phone would light up about .03 seconds after I took the first hit with a text message telling me to put down the bong.

Having thus shared my guilty secret, I have to know - am I the only pot virgin on here?

[WiregrassTiger]

I bet I know why Chizads butt is sore.

[Snaggletiger]

I took Snags comment to mean, is GH gonna have to cut a bitch up in here?

The interpretation power is strong in this one.

[AUChizad]

Let's start slow...

First off, not my hypothesis.

I believe your hypothesis was...

I'll save you the trouble. There has never been a direct marijuana related death throughout history.

I will call bullshit on this.


There may have never been anyone OD on marijuana throughout history  but to say there has never been a death that was marijuana related makes no sense.

Which then led to the strawman argument about marijuana DUIs that take up pretty much the next two and half pages of this thread. Remember? You kept going on and on about jeeps and ditches.

See above.

You aren't suggesting it was the jeep's or the ditch's fault are you?

You know....mixed with substances like jeeps or ditches.

I think we should outlaw ditches and jeeps.

why would I not ask the person who obviously is more concerned with this issue than almost anyone else on the board? You felt the need to bring up quotes from five years ago so this is obviously a sensitive issue for you (and possibly your butt).

I'm sorry I know how to use the search function. This apparently is painful to your butt since it's been brought up multiple times.

The Colorado study came out yesterday when I posted it. It was relevant to this thread where at least three people were declaring that legalization would lead to masses driving while high. I see this study that directly refutes it, so I searched for the conversation and quoted the dumb.

Um, hang on Mr Conspiracy Theory.  You are jumping to some conclusions. 

He asked a simple question.  "Got any data from Washington?"  Not because he already knew the answer, but because he figured someone like you who is all over this pro/con argument would have that info at your fingertips.  You had several possible responses, any of which could have been correct.

1.  No, you only looked at Colorado data.
2.  Yes, you looked at Washington data as well, but it was pretty much the same as Colorado and you were already hinging on TL;DR territory, so you didn't mention it.
3.  Yes, you looked at Washington data but chose not to mention it because it did not support the Colorado data, and you wanted to make a statement without silly facts and figures clouding the issue.

Accusing him of some grand plot against you when few others saw it that way is the sign of a delusional mind.  You smoking a Sherm?

I did? I'm pretty sure my response was literally these two words:

Do you?

Directly proceeded by Sani jumping down my ass about quoting someone from earlier in this thread because it was five years ago and therefore irrelevant. And I'm "threatened" by his question.

No.  I was asking.  I figured someone who beats the benefits of pot drum as much as you do would have that.

I personally like looking at multiple sets of data whether it supports what I think or not.  That's how new learning takes place, but since you seem to feel threatened by my asking we can just make the blanket statement that pot makes it safer to drive.

Correlation is not causation, but since Washington is the only other state who has it legalized I thought that would be a good contrast and compare item.  I mean surely someone who is bringing up quotes from 5 years ago would like to look deeply at the subject matter?

All that from the words "Do" and "You" and a question mark. Which somehow equates to me being an Alex Jones nut job thinking the world's out to get me. Ok...

Sani's point is that you can't make an assumption based on one set of data points.  Scientists run an experiment multiple times to corroborate their findings.  Some scientists do nothing but repeat other folks experiments in an attempt to prove or disprove them. One set of findings from Colorado does not a hard and firm factual case make.

Nor did I ever suggest otherwise. However, when there is one study on the subject, it is certainly a stronger indicator than no study at all. Do you disagree? It's irrelevant because Washington hasn't conducted their own study to confirm the same findings?

[Saniflush]

I'm not jumping on your ass but for you to act like you were genuinely asking me for data from from Washington is a farce.
I also never said it was irrelevant or that i discounted it.  Just simply asked if you had any data from the only other apples to apples source?

So it really brings us back to you being up in arms about something that most of the rest of us give less than two flying buttfucks about.   

Plus we should still outlaw jeeps and ditches.

[AUChizad]

I'm not jumping on your ass but for you to act like you were genuinely asking me for data from from Washington is a farce.

Well, I was. If you had conflicting data, I'd be happy to see it. Based on my original suspicions, and then confirmed by the Colorado study, I would wager that if and when Washington does conduct a study, it will have similar findings. But if not, great. Let that information enter the conversation and we'll go from there.

I seriously assumed you were asking because you knew of some other study that I did not.

So it really brings us back to you being up in arms about something that most of the rest of us give less than two flying buttfucks about.   

Again, my level of give-a-fuck has been greatly exaggerated. I haven't smoked pot probably since before this thread was started five and a half years ago. I can count on my fingers the total number of times that I have.

I just don't like dumb arguments that completely deny indisputable facts, which is largely what the other side of the argument in this thread has been.

[WiregrassTiger]

Wait a minute. Sani jumped down into Chizad's ass? They've turned another straight man. They are taking over this country right before our eyes. And they're high.

[Kaos]

Ive been drunk enough to where I had no business behing behind the wheel of a 2 ton piece of metal going 60 mph. If I had, bad things would have likely happened.

And you know if you got that high and tried to drive, that would be regulated right? Just like drinking. High and can't walk a straight line? Equivelant to a DUI. Thats why we say regulate and tax it just like any other substance.

Also wondering what pot you got a hold of to make you hallucinate that badly.

From a dude in Birmingham.  And yes, according to all the relevant sources weed used in massive quantities by someone with little tolerance has the capacity to cause visual and auditory hallucinations. I wasn't complaining.  I liked them.

Deciding I was flat like cardboard was less a hallucination than a matter of disorientation. I laid flat on the couch, like planking, while I worried somebody was going to come home and discover that I was in that state.  I also kept picking up my phone and wondering why it wasn't ringing while simultaneously worrying that it would.

Medicine affects me weirdly anyway. I hallucinate from anesthesia. Sheep usually.  Talking sheep.  Non drowsy pills knock me out. I once took two Tavist-D tablets and slept for 48 straight hours. They were on the verge of taking me to the emergency room when I came to. Could hear people talking but could not respond.

The weed was more a matter of quantity. Don't do it regularly. When I did? I smoked a LOT. Treated it like a binge drinking 18 year old. "I don't feel anything, let me hit that a few more times."  Quantities that would make Cheech and Chong go "damn, dude." 

Did it on the golf course not too long ago. Guy I was playing with had rigged a vapor smoker to roast it and we burned a huge pile. It got ridiculous. Teed off twice on the same hole because neither me or my partner could remember whether we had teed off or not.  And I later forgot how to swing. Or to be more precise I thought about and felt each individual component of the swing which rendered me unable to make it happen.  I don't see how people can play sports while high.

Is it "safer" than booze?  I don't know. Anything that interferes with your ability to function can't be good.

[AUChizad]

Did it on the golf course not too long ago. Guy I was playing with had rigged a vapor smoker to roast it and we burned a huge pile. It got ridiculous. Teed off twice on the same hole because neither me or my partner could remember whether we had teed off or not.  And I later forgot how to swing. Or to be more precise I thought about and felt each individual component of the swing which rendered me unable to make it happen.  I don't see how people can play sports while high.

Now, that is completely plausible and likely. Especially if you don't partake often and then go nuts.

But do you remember the first time you got a hold of a bottle of whiskey and probably went way overboard because you didn't know your limits? Didn't think so.

[Kaos]

Now, that is completely plausible and likely. Especially if you don't partake often and then go nuts.

But do you remember the first time you got a hold of a bottle of whiskey and probably went way overboard because you didn't know your limits? Didn't think so.

I remember hazy parts of it.  Holy shit I was a mess. And in public.

[WiregrassTiger]

Now, that is completely plausible and likely. Especially if you don't partake often and then go nuts.

But do you remember the first time you got a hold of a bottle of whiskey and probably went way overboard because you didn't know your limits? Didn't think so.

Do you remember the first time you took it up the butt? I thought so.

[CCTAU]

 not alone

Temporary hijack:  I have never smoked pot.  I am quite old enough for it to have been a thing for my generation and those since, but my dad was an undercover narc for most of my childhood, and with law enforcement connections all over the damn place.  He would probably STILL know if I did it.  My phone would light up about .03 seconds after I took the first hit with a text message telling me to put down the bong.

Having thus shared my guilty secret, I have to know - am I the only pot virgin on here?

You are not alone.

Never have I taken any drug that was not prescribed to me.

I would, however, try to outdrink you and then have sex wth you. (Hey. We all have our vices)

I do, however, propose that MJ is legalized and regulated.

But I also feel that if you want to plant your whole backyard with it, then so be it. You just cannot sell it.

[Tiger Wench]

not alone
You are not alone.

Never have I taken any drug that was not prescribed to me.

I would, however, try to outdrink you and then have sex wth you. (Hey. We all have our vices)

I do, however, propose that MJ is legalized and regulated.

But I also feel that if you want to plant your whole backyard with it, then so be it. You just cannot sell it.

Two takeaways from that post.

(1) I appreciate that you respect me enough to "try" and outdrink me.  Depends on what we are drinking, but I could still probably hold my own if it's wine.

(2) Unless this post is directed specifically at me?  The rest of the guys better think twice before letting you get drunk when they are around if it makes you that horny.

[The Prowler]

http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/08/07/03/13/road-fatalities-at-all-time-low-since-marijuana-legalised-in-colorado