ya, that barely scratches the surface...but hey, I like my cereal and beer, too! There are a lot of products on the market that use hemp (at least in Canada)...but we are nowhere near it's potential.
I actually know the guy that was given one of the first (the first?) permits to grow commercial hemp in Canada....he was mayor of Grand Forks BC at the time....and the hoops he went thru, the BS he dealt with was unreal....just to get one small-ish hemp co-op running. It's sad how it's the same old shit when it comes to hemp....people still don't get that it's not psychoactive...you still hear people raising concerns about people stealing plants n whatnot....grrrrr...perfect example: I just looked for a link to the HEMP co-op and the site was blocked by my company's network......
forbidden - reason: drugs/illegal drugs :mad:
...now I probably just set off some kind of flag in IT...fuck sakes.
in other news, BP has just gotten permission to dump mercury into one of our last large drinking water supplies for the next 5 years. im sure they don't have the money to clean it up or change it due to those record profits they posted last quarter...
Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.
What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study needs to ask? First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot, though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.
Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case -- in fact, as I noted here earlier, some experts think they may actually have fallen. Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana.
Since marijuana use rates have skyrocketed since the 1940's and 50's, going from single digit percentages of the population trying it to a peak of some 60% of high school seniors trying it in 1979 (stabilizing thereafter at roughly 50% of each high school class), we would expect to see this trend have some visible effect on the prevalence of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell. This is not the case with marijuana and psychotic disorders; if it were, we'd be seeing an epidemic of psychosis.
But readers of the AP, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters were not presented with this information. While CBS/WebMD mentioned the absence of a surge in schizophrenia, it did so by quoting an advocate of marijuana policy reform, rather than citing a study or quoting a doctor. This slants the story by pitting an advocate with an agenda against a presumably neutral medical authority.
Furthermore, very little of the coverage put the risk in context. A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists, however, a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don't find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won't publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that's hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!
By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women. Although this study was not a meta-analysis (which looks at multiple studies, as the marijuana research did), it certainly is worth citing to help readers get a sense of the magnitude of the risk in comparison with other drugs linked to psychosis.
Of course, if journalists wanted to do that, they would also cite researchers who disagree with the notion that marijuana poses a large risk of inducing psychosis at all, such as Oxford's Leslie Iversen, author of one of the key texts on psychopharmacology, who told the Times of London that
"Despite a thorough review the authors admit that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness. Their prediction that 14 per cent of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."
Such comments don't help the media stir up reefer madness, which they've been doing, quite successfully, for the last few decades. Perhaps covering the marijuana beat makes you crazy.
in other news, BP has just gotten permission to dump mercury into one of our last large drinking water supplies for the next 5 years. im sure they don't have the money to clean it up or change it due to those record profits they posted last quarter...
ya, that barely scratches the surface...but hey, I like my cereal and beer, too! There are a lot of products on the market that use hemp (at least in Canada)...but we are nowhere near it's potential.
I actually know the guy that was given one of the first (the first?) permits to grow commercial hemp in Canada....he was mayor of Grand Forks BC at the time....and the hoops he went thru, the BS he dealt with was unreal....just to get one small-ish hemp co-op running. It's sad how it's the same old shit when it comes to hemp....people still don't get that it's not psychoactive...you still hear people raising concerns about people stealing plants n whatnot....grrrrr...perfect example: I just looked for a link to the HEMP co-op and the site was blocked by my company's network......
forbidden - reason: drugs/illegal drugs :mad:
...now I probably just set off some kind of flag in IT...fuck sakes.
yeah, to get high from hemp you'd have to smoke a garbage bag's worth and you'd probably puke, shit yourself, or choke up a lung first. Probably get a better high off scraping the wheels of your lawnmower.
The gov't is run by a bunch of phobic, out of touch, dried up dinosaurs.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Huffington post seems like one of the very few places you can essentially trust what you read.
nice find.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
8 towns stand up against BP plan
By Susan Kuczka | Tribune staff reporter
9:07 PM CDT, July 30, 2007
Mayors from eight North Shore communities joined U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Monday in announcing plans to fight the proposed discharge of significantly more ammonia and industrial waste into Lake Michigan by the massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., after years of effort to clean up the Great Lakes.
"Any time you start putting more pollution into the lake, it's a concern," said North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham, who joined officials from Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, Waukegan and Wilmette in announcing formation of the Shoreline Mayors Task Force to address lake issues such as pollution.
BP recently won approval from Indiana regulators to exempt the company from state environmental laws as it prepares for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow it to refine heavier Canadian crude oil. Under BP's new water permit, the company, which already is one of the largest polluters of the Great Lakes, can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended solids, or tiny particles of pollutants that come from sludge.
Although the amounts are still below federal water-quality standards, BP's new permit represents the first time in years that a company has been allowed to increase the amount of pollution it dumps into the lake.
In addition, the new water permit gives the refinery until 2012 to meet stringent federal limits on mercury discharges even though the federal government had ordered states to severely limit mercury discharges into the Great Lakes more than a decade ago.
Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while suspended solids contain heavy metals such as lead and nickel. Mercury threatens the health of humans and fish.
Last week, Gov. Rod Blagojevich joined federal lawmakers in blasting BP on Capitol Hill, leading to overwhelming passage of a House resolution to condemn the plan.
In its defense, BP, the nation's fourth-largest refinery, said it was investing $150 million in upgrades to its current wastewater treatment plans while using the best available technology in the facility to protect the lake from dangerous pollutants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials Peter Swenson and John Mooney also offered assurances at Monday's news conference that the pollution discharges at the plant would not jeopardize the safety of the lake for humans or fish.
The assurances, however, did not satisfy Kirk or the suburban mayors whose communities border the lakefront.
"This is mind-baffling," said Waukegan Mayor Richard Hyde, whose city is working on a $1.2 billion plan to improve its once industrial shoreline into a residential hub. "It all comes down to, the big guys are going to do what they want to do anyway."
The suburban mayors vowed to exert as much pressure as possible on environmental regulatory officials, Indiana officials and BP to scrap the plan.
"We all have to stick together," said Highwood Mayor Vincent Donofrio.
Kirk said he would propose legislation to remove federal tax benefits from BP or any company that seeks to increase harmful discharges into the lake. Such measures could make such plans too unprofitable to go forward, Kirk said.
But the 10th District lawmaker from Highland Park also questioned how the permits had been issued by EPA officials in the first place.
"If pollution is allowed to increase in the Great Lakes, there's something wrong with the system," Kirk said.
8 towns stand up against BP plan
By Susan Kuczka | Tribune staff reporter
9:07 PM CDT, July 30, 2007
Mayors from eight North Shore communities joined U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Monday in announcing plans to fight the proposed discharge of significantly more ammonia and industrial waste into Lake Michigan by the massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., after years of effort to clean up the Great Lakes.
Weed was pretty much amazing before it was a suburban drug. There was a time in the 70's and 80's when only young, culturally relevent people smoked weed.
Now it's the 21st century. Fat, aging, undersexed housewives and 12 year old rich kids smoke fatties every day after school. It's fucking insane. The clergy hides a jesus bong under the pews. Pot has become such a joke. There's no danger to it anymore.
Come on bitches, admit it: Weed has become gentrified and common. It's a teen ritual, like beer.
You'd smoke the stems and wheeze "I'm soooo high" if it would just make you look cool.
Weed was pretty much amazing before it was a suburban drug. There was a time in the 70's and 80's when only young, culturally relevent people smoked weed.
Now it's the 21st century. Fat, aging, undersexed housewives and 12 year old rich kids smoke fatties every day after school. It's fucking insane. The clergy hides a jesus bong under the pews. Pot has become such a joke. There's no danger to it anymore.
Come on bitches, admit it: Weed has become gentrified and common. It's a teen ritual, like beer.
You'd smoke the stems and wheeze "I'm soooo high" if it would just make you look cool.
Fucking hell. I'm never touching weed.
doing drugs just to seem "young and culturally relevant" makes you ten times as fucking stupid as the people you make fun of for smoking cos they want to be cool. that i can understand. acting like getting stoned is some sort of cultural statement is the gayest fucking thing i ever heard. im glad you won't touch it. nobody should waste their pot on your sorry ass.
doing drugs just to seem "young and culturally relevant" makes you ten times as fucking stupid as the people you make fun of for smoking cos they want to be cool. that i can understand.
You should have paid closer attention to my post. I too denounced smoking as a way to look cool.
acting like getting stoned is some sort of cultural statement is the gayest fucking thing i ever heard. im glad you won't touch it. nobody should waste their pot on your sorry ass.
It doesn't have to be a cultural statement, buit when everybody has access to pot, some of that appeal is gone. It's no longer a thing you do with friends as a private party if your mom, aunts, and uncles do pot too.
Pot was more fun when it was a little more "mysterious". It's become too mainstream, like an indie band that just signed to a big record label. Yeah, that was a shit metaphor but you get the idea.
You should have paid closer attention to my post. I too denounced smoking as a way to look cool.
It doesn't have to be a cultural statement, buit when everybody has access to pot, some of that appeal is gone. It's no longer a thing you do with friends as a private party if your mom, aunts, and uncles do pot too.
Pot was more fun when it was a little more "mysterious". It's become too mainstream, like an indie band that just signed to a big record label. Yeah, that was a shit metaphor but you get the idea.
that is a shit metaphor becos i hate nobody more than a pretentious indie snob who acts like if their pet band sells more than 1000 copies, they obviously have to suck now. cos if it's listenable, it can't be good. you denounced smoking to look cool by saying you wish it was still edgy and cool to do it.
personally, i love getting high with family. it's a gas. the more people you can share the buzz with the better. if you think the appeal is in how few people do it... ive got a great suggestion for you. try crack. now there's a mysterious and dangerous drug. and it has it's own separate subculture that "the man" and mainstream america hasn't touched. go on bro, light up. it was nice knowing you.
that is a shit metaphor becos i hate nobody more than a pretentious indie snob who acts like if their pet band sells more than 1000 copies, they obviously have to suck now. cos if it's listenable, it can't be good. you denounced smoking to look cool by saying you wish it was still edgy and cool to do it.
personally, i love getting high with family. it's a gas. the more people you can share the buzz with the better. if you think the appeal is in how few people do it... ive got a great suggestion for you. try crack. now there's a mysterious and dangerous drug. and it has it's own separate subculture that "the man" and mainstream america hasn't touched. go on bro, light up. it was nice knowing you.
Sorry I burned you up so bad. Different strokes, man. I don't like smoking with da' fam. If that makes any sense. Probably not.
Feel free to explode at this post. Go ahead. I'll be doing crack. But probably not. I'll be in my time machine, when pot was new. I liked pot better when it was new and virgin. It had that new experience appeal. Too bad.
Are they still trying to find a reason why pot should be illegal? This sounds like a pretty lame reason if you ask me. I mean come on, diet soda should be criminalized before pot.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I'm not old enough to be a hipster. But I'm just old enough to like pot.
There is some kind of intangible appeal to pot as a private thing. I don't like talking about it. When pot is a junior high school topic, it doesn't feel right. There's something nice about doing pot in private, and that's the end of it. No yapping the next day "man I was soooooo baked, ya rly."
Maybe the pot culture hasn't gentrified, but it has devolved into really generic dialogue. I hear the same pot chat all the time. Some of the fun is gone. Shit.
PS: I'm not an indie snob. QotSA forever, bitches.
I'm not old enough to be a hipster. But I'm just old enough to like pot.
There is some kind of intangible appeal to pot as a private thing. I don't like talking about it. When pot is a junior high school topic, it doesn't feel right. There's something nice about doing pot in private, and that's the end of it. No yapping the next day "man I was soooooo baked, ya rly."
Maybe the pot culture hasn't gentrified, but it has devolved into really generic dialogue. I hear the same pot chat all the time. Some of the fun is gone. Shit.
PS: I'm not an indie snob. QotSA forever, bitches.
i make fun of those people too. check out my description of RATM's dorm room burnout politics. i just never saw anything about pot beyond a nice buzz. i never cared who said what about it and it didnt affect my love of getting high. sorry you find it to be a buzzkill.
I see a huge waste of money on a mild euphoric, safer than alcohol, natural plant that was here millions of years before man.
Who has the right to say what it is, and what is done with it? Nobody owns it, nobody owns me. If I hurt no one (including myself) what exactly is the issue?
They said the impact of cannabis was likely to be due to the way in which cannabis joints are smoked - joints do not usually have filters, and they reach higher temperatures with users inhaling more deeply and holding their breath for longer than cigarette smokers.
doing drugs just to seem "young and culturally relevant" makes you ten times as fucking stupid as the people you make fun of for smoking cos they want to be cool. that i can understand. acting like getting stoned is some sort of cultural statement is the gayest fucking thing i ever heard. im glad you won't touch it. nobody should waste their pot on your sorry ass.
dude, i forget to tell you how much you crack me up sometimes. this is one of those times. anyway, becca and i say hi.
Do you guys all really think that smoking pot in a long term abuse way has absolutly no affect on your lungs or mental health?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Do you guys all really think that smoking pot in a long term abuse way has absolutly no affect on your lungs or mental health?
maybe a slightly bad effect on my lungs, but definately a good effect on my mental health. it has a calming effect, and a creative effect! there are receptors in all of our brains that serve no purpose other than to receive and process THC - the active chemical in marijuana. also, look in google to see how many stories there are about how marijuana prevents Alzheimer's.
i also have no doubt that a lot of the music we love would not exist without marijuana, and in some cases, other drugs. i honestly think 100% of music i own is made by musicians who have at the very least smoked pot.
It just can't be denied that herb makes listening to music, (and watching movies many, many times better).
The earliest Jazz musicians found this out in very quick order.
Then there's going to concerts...hands down it's definitely better.
There isn't a person alive that could argue.
Musician proven.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
maybe a slightly bad effect on my lungs, but definately a good effect on my mental health. it has a calming effect, and a creative effect! there are receptors in all of our brains that serve no purpose other than to receive and process THC - the active chemical in marijuana. also, look in google to see how many stories there are about how marijuana prevents Alzheimer's.
i also have no doubt that a lot of the music we love would not exist without marijuana, and in some cases, other drugs. i honestly think 100% of music i own is made by musicians who have at the very least smoked pot.
So are you a half once a week smoker? Or a weekend smoker, i believe there is a big difference. Like i said all the people i know smoke from when they wake up so that in books is abuse and they all have problems caused from smoking constantly.
Vicodin is a great pain killer shall we all abuse that too?
Yes i'm sure lots of lovely music was made by lots of high people, so what? it's an age old reason for how great being a pot head is but it don't really mean anything to me.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Comments
ya, that barely scratches the surface...but hey, I like my cereal and beer, too!
I actually know the guy that was given one of the first (the first?) permits to grow commercial hemp in Canada....he was mayor of Grand Forks BC at the time....and the hoops he went thru, the BS he dealt with was unreal....just to get one small-ish hemp co-op running. It's sad how it's the same old shit when it comes to hemp....people still don't get that it's not psychoactive...you still hear people raising concerns about people stealing plants n whatnot....grrrrr...perfect example: I just looked for a link to the HEMP co-op and the site was blocked by my company's network......
forbidden - reason: drugs/illegal drugs :mad:
...now I probably just set off some kind of flag in IT...fuck sakes.
Watching the media cover marijuana is fascinating, offering deep insight into conventional wisdom, bias and failure to properly place science in context. The coverage of a new study claiming that marijuana increases the risk of later psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia by 40% displays many of these flaws.
What are the key questions reporters writing about such a study needs to ask? First, can the research prove causality? Most of the reporting here, to its credit, establishes at some point that it cannot, though you have to read pretty far down in some of it to understand this.
Second -- and this is where virtually all of the coverage falls flat -- if marijuana produces what seems like such a large jump in risk for schizophrenia, have schizophrenia rates increased in line with marijuana use rates? A quick search of Medline shows that this is not the case -- in fact, as I noted here earlier, some experts think they may actually have fallen. Around the world, roughly 1% of the population has schizophrenia (and another 2% or so have other psychotic disorders), and this proportion doesn't seem to change much. It is not correlated with population use rates of marijuana.
Since marijuana use rates have skyrocketed since the 1940's and 50's, going from single digit percentages of the population trying it to a peak of some 60% of high school seniors trying it in 1979 (stabilizing thereafter at roughly 50% of each high school class), we would expect to see this trend have some visible effect on the prevalence of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
When cigarette smoking barreled through the population, lung cancer rose in parallel; when smoking rates fell, lung cancer rates fell. This is not the case with marijuana and psychotic disorders; if it were, we'd be seeing an epidemic of psychosis.
But readers of the AP, Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters were not presented with this information. While CBS/WebMD mentioned the absence of a surge in schizophrenia, it did so by quoting an advocate of marijuana policy reform, rather than citing a study or quoting a doctor. This slants the story by pitting an advocate with an agenda against a presumably neutral medical authority.
Furthermore, very little of the coverage put the risk in context. A 40% increase in risk sounds scary, and this was the risk linked to trying marijuana once, not to heavy use. To epidemiologists, however, a 40% increase is not especially noteworthy-- they usually don't find risk factors worth worrying about until the number hits at least 200% and some major journals won't publish studies unless the risk is 300 or even 400%. The marijuana paper did find that heavy use increased risk by 200-300%, but that's hardly as sexy as try marijuana once, increase your risk of schizophrenia by nearly half!
By contrast, one study found that alcohol has been found to increase the risk of psychosis by 800% for men and 300% for women. Although this study was not a meta-analysis (which looks at multiple studies, as the marijuana research did), it certainly is worth citing to help readers get a sense of the magnitude of the risk in comparison with other drugs linked to psychosis.
Of course, if journalists wanted to do that, they would also cite researchers who disagree with the notion that marijuana poses a large risk of inducing psychosis at all, such as Oxford's Leslie Iversen, author of one of the key texts on psychopharmacology, who told the Times of London that
"Despite a thorough review the authors admit that there is no conclusive evidence that cannabis use causes psychotic illness. Their prediction that 14 per cent of psychotic outcomes in young adults in the UK may be due to cannabis use is not supported by the fact that the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years."
Such comments don't help the media stir up reefer madness, which they've been doing, quite successfully, for the last few decades. Perhaps covering the marijuana beat makes you crazy.
Oh fuck. Where'd hear about this?
yeah, to get high from hemp you'd have to smoke a garbage bag's worth and you'd probably puke, shit yourself, or choke up a lung first. Probably get a better high off scraping the wheels of your lawnmower.
The gov't is run by a bunch of phobic, out of touch, dried up dinosaurs.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Huffington post seems like one of the very few places you can essentially trust what you read.
nice find.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Correct.
If you (or anyone ) were to barbacue every single meal, every day; the smoke from the BBQ would damage your lungs.
By Susan Kuczka | Tribune staff reporter
9:07 PM CDT, July 30, 2007
Mayors from eight North Shore communities joined U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) on Monday in announcing plans to fight the proposed discharge of significantly more ammonia and industrial waste into Lake Michigan by the massive BP oil refinery in Whiting, Ind., after years of effort to clean up the Great Lakes.
"Any time you start putting more pollution into the lake, it's a concern," said North Chicago Mayor Leon Rockingham, who joined officials from Highland Park, Highwood, Kenilworth, Lake Bluff, Lake Forest, Waukegan and Wilmette in announcing formation of the Shoreline Mayors Task Force to address lake issues such as pollution.
BP recently won approval from Indiana regulators to exempt the company from state environmental laws as it prepares for a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow it to refine heavier Canadian crude oil. Under BP's new water permit, the company, which already is one of the largest polluters of the Great Lakes, can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended solids, or tiny particles of pollutants that come from sludge.
Although the amounts are still below federal water-quality standards, BP's new permit represents the first time in years that a company has been allowed to increase the amount of pollution it dumps into the lake.
In addition, the new water permit gives the refinery until 2012 to meet stringent federal limits on mercury discharges even though the federal government had ordered states to severely limit mercury discharges into the Great Lakes more than a decade ago.
Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish, while suspended solids contain heavy metals such as lead and nickel. Mercury threatens the health of humans and fish.
Last week, Gov. Rod Blagojevich joined federal lawmakers in blasting BP on Capitol Hill, leading to overwhelming passage of a House resolution to condemn the plan.
In its defense, BP, the nation's fourth-largest refinery, said it was investing $150 million in upgrades to its current wastewater treatment plans while using the best available technology in the facility to protect the lake from dangerous pollutants.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials Peter Swenson and John Mooney also offered assurances at Monday's news conference that the pollution discharges at the plant would not jeopardize the safety of the lake for humans or fish.
The assurances, however, did not satisfy Kirk or the suburban mayors whose communities border the lakefront.
"This is mind-baffling," said Waukegan Mayor Richard Hyde, whose city is working on a $1.2 billion plan to improve its once industrial shoreline into a residential hub. "It all comes down to, the big guys are going to do what they want to do anyway."
The suburban mayors vowed to exert as much pressure as possible on environmental regulatory officials, Indiana officials and BP to scrap the plan.
"We all have to stick together," said Highwood Mayor Vincent Donofrio.
Kirk said he would propose legislation to remove federal tax benefits from BP or any company that seeks to increase harmful discharges into the lake. Such measures could make such plans too unprofitable to go forward, Kirk said.
But the 10th District lawmaker from Highland Park also questioned how the permits had been issued by EPA officials in the first place.
"If pollution is allowed to increase in the Great Lakes, there's something wrong with the system," Kirk said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070730pollutionjul30,1,5540831.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
warms your heart and your third arm don't it?
Now it's the 21st century. Fat, aging, undersexed housewives and 12 year old rich kids smoke fatties every day after school. It's fucking insane. The clergy hides a jesus bong under the pews. Pot has become such a joke. There's no danger to it anymore.
Come on bitches, admit it: Weed has become gentrified and common. It's a teen ritual, like beer.
You'd smoke the stems and wheeze "I'm soooo high" if it would just make you look cool.
Fucking hell. I'm never touching weed.
doing drugs just to seem "young and culturally relevant" makes you ten times as fucking stupid as the people you make fun of for smoking cos they want to be cool. that i can understand. acting like getting stoned is some sort of cultural statement is the gayest fucking thing i ever heard. im glad you won't touch it. nobody should waste their pot on your sorry ass.
You should have paid closer attention to my post. I too denounced smoking as a way to look cool.
It doesn't have to be a cultural statement, buit when everybody has access to pot, some of that appeal is gone. It's no longer a thing you do with friends as a private party if your mom, aunts, and uncles do pot too.
Pot was more fun when it was a little more "mysterious". It's become too mainstream, like an indie band that just signed to a big record label. Yeah, that was a shit metaphor but you get the idea.
that is a shit metaphor becos i hate nobody more than a pretentious indie snob who acts like if their pet band sells more than 1000 copies, they obviously have to suck now. cos if it's listenable, it can't be good. you denounced smoking to look cool by saying you wish it was still edgy and cool to do it.
personally, i love getting high with family. it's a gas. the more people you can share the buzz with the better. if you think the appeal is in how few people do it... ive got a great suggestion for you. try crack. now there's a mysterious and dangerous drug. and it has it's own separate subculture that "the man" and mainstream america hasn't touched. go on bro, light up. it was nice knowing you.
Sorry I burned you up so bad. Different strokes, man. I don't like smoking with da' fam. If that makes any sense. Probably not.
Feel free to explode at this post. Go ahead. I'll be doing crack. But probably not. I'll be in my time machine, when pot was new. I liked pot better when it was new and virgin. It had that new experience appeal. Too bad.
only when i quit smoking cigarettes.
and when lame people try to act all hipster.
I'm not old enough to be a hipster. But I'm just old enough to like pot.
There is some kind of intangible appeal to pot as a private thing. I don't like talking about it. When pot is a junior high school topic, it doesn't feel right. There's something nice about doing pot in private, and that's the end of it. No yapping the next day "man I was soooooo baked, ya rly."
Maybe the pot culture hasn't gentrified, but it has devolved into really generic dialogue. I hear the same pot chat all the time. Some of the fun is gone. Shit.
PS: I'm not an indie snob. QotSA forever, bitches.
i make fun of those people too. check out my description of RATM's dorm room burnout politics. i just never saw anything about pot beyond a nice buzz. i never cared who said what about it and it didnt affect my love of getting high. sorry you find it to be a buzzkill.
nicely put
great video!!!!!!
I can´t stop laughin´!
dude, i forget to tell you how much you crack me up sometimes. this is one of those times.
i love science.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
maybe a slightly bad effect on my lungs, but definately a good effect on my mental health. it has a calming effect, and a creative effect! there are receptors in all of our brains that serve no purpose other than to receive and process THC - the active chemical in marijuana. also, look in google to see how many stories there are about how marijuana prevents Alzheimer's.
i also have no doubt that a lot of the music we love would not exist without marijuana, and in some cases, other drugs. i honestly think 100% of music i own is made by musicians who have at the very least smoked pot.
The earliest Jazz musicians found this out in very quick order.
Then there's going to concerts...hands down it's definitely better.
There isn't a person alive that could argue.
Musician proven.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
So are you a half once a week smoker? Or a weekend smoker, i believe there is a big difference. Like i said all the people i know smoke from when they wake up so that in books is abuse and they all have problems caused from smoking constantly.
Vicodin is a great pain killer shall we all abuse that too?
Yes i'm sure lots of lovely music was made by lots of high people, so what? it's an age old reason for how great being a pot head is but it don't really mean anything to me.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
there you are.
- brain of c