dezgimed Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Rent boys earn that much? If you're lucky enough to have met Steve Coppell during his brief stint, yes. Pretty much my sole customer these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Haha fair enough! If the poster "Neo" was still around I'm sure he would be treading on your toes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Haha fair enough! If the poster "Neo" was still around I'm sure he would be treading on your toes! Rings a bell. Big gay pink hippo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokey Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 You shouldn't present an opinion like it is fact, unless you have done substantial research into the area. In my opinion from anecdotal evidence, it can be very dangerous when used by the wrong people. Not to mention every 'stoner' I grew up with is now a braindead ****tard wasting their life on the dole watching Jeremy Kyle. It is a fact though, typical arrogance towards it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezgimed Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 It is a fact though, typical arrogance towards it How is it a fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich_s Posted January 6, 2014 Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 You say don't present anecdote as fact, then you present an anecdote. The guy who was the most notorious "stoner" in my college is now chief operations manager of the UK branch of a huge American technology corporation.. His best mate - also known to inhale frequently - is a professor and considered the leading expert in his particular field of medicine, so I don't think you can generalise. I've no doubt it can harm some folks - there's a cancer risk apart from anything, but so does alcohol, yet that's legal. As my earlier post said, a prohibition policy isn't working and the only people who benefit from such an approach are major league criminals. I was a habitual stoner and during that period I got a first class hon degree, top of my class for a masters and got a doctorate and have done pretty ok in business, though having fun in what I do has always driven me more than financial gain. So still a bit of a hippy I guess! I work in tech. I've seen people get seriously ****** up on skunk weed, too scared to answer the door and smoking from dawn until dusk and yes watching Jeremy Kyle. However, I watched more friends become dependent on alcohol , their marriages, careers and health fail than those who smoked weed. Being a daily weed smoker I knew a helluva lot more smokers than drinkers but know few people that had weed problems. I wouldn't advocate what I did but current policy within this country regarding the legality or otherwise of alcohol versus marihuana is ridiculous . With regards to weed it's my belief that the brain dead idiots who sit around all day watching Kyle would have been brain dead idiots watching Kyle regardless of weed. I no longer smoke at all and haven't for a long time. Cider is my vice and if anything I'm more chilled now than when I smoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted January 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2014 Meanwhile, back at the subject, 13 people have voted for More Repressive and precisely NONE have voted for Less Repressive. I really didn't expect that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Think alcohol, discovered tomorrow, would be banned. However, it's a bit late now. I've known loads of non-psychotic, non-layabout stoners - some of whom have achieved considerably more than what would be deemed reasonable. Overall, it's the fatties that need picking on. Stuffing their fat faces with shit food, sitting on their fat asses whilst us piss-heads/stoners get all the persecution. Most things are fine in moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTFiGO!?! Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Meanwhile, back at the subject, 13 people have voted for More Repressive and precisely NONE have voted for Less Repressive.I really didn't expect that.Meanwhile, back at the subject, 13 people have voted for More Repressive and precisely NONE have voted for Less Repressive.I really didn't expect that.I've just voted 'don't know'. I'm not wholly against state control but it does need channelling appropriately. People of working age, dependent on the state, long-term not disabled but unable/unwilling to be self-sufficient (employed) should have their civil rights monitorred accordingly. For example, "scroungers" should have their expenditure scrutinised and every non-essential outgoing should be deducted from the next state-given income. ITV, C5 and all the other braindead 'entertainment' should be made unavailable. A noval a week is to be read. Cooking lessons are to be made compulsory. No microwaves. No fast food. Compulsory exercise classes. Etc etc. I'd also 'repress' the population so that the state will support one offspring only. If you can't afford to support independant kids, don't have them. I'd make voting compulsory. On the other hand, I'd have smoking and non-smoking establishnents. I wouldn't humiliate folk for having a few pints before football. I'd sort out a bloody tram in Bristol. I'd legalise pot - and deliver adult education surrounding the issue. I'd make schooling more 'real-world' relevant. If I ruled the world . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aizoon Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Just to show that I'm not exaggerating, this marvellous piece of legislation is currently going through the Lords. I quote: Courts could impose these [penalties] on anyone engaging - or threatening to engage - in "conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person".http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25648019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.