Cannabis debates part 1 LULZ – wow!

They have a lobby group?

  • Avatar
    Jccollier • 6 months ago • parent

    yea there called senators

    • Avatar
      Grammarnazi • 6 months ago • parent

      *they’re

      I agree with you, but you’d make us [pot legalization advocates] all look like less of a moronic group if you’d use proper grammar. =D

      • Avatar
        John Fisher • 6 months ago • parent

        Grammarnazi: Regardless of whether any of these things are words or not, the fact remains that a bunch of stoners that don’t even know how to use proper grammar when making arguments supporting the cause makes us all be cast as uneducated pot heads that can be cast aside without decent consideration. I echo exactly what Grammar said: If you used proper grammar you would make all of us look less moronic.
        We’re going up against Ivy League educated politicians. They spot that error just like I do and it makes me look down on you regardless of how intelligent your message may be. If you cannot spell, you cannot possibly have enough sense to be educated and have a valid argument. That judgement automatically gets cast upon the entire movement due to the highly stereotypical society. Nothing personal, just understand the point.

        • Avatar
          Matthew Minard • 6 months ago • parent

          John Fisher: I am an English major and I smoke weed.

          • Avatar
            AlwaysHungry • 6 months ago • parent

            Matthew Minard: I am a weed major and I speak English.

            • Avatar
              En • 6 months ago • parent

              AlwaysHungry: I believe matthew but you’re a liar, every “weed major” speaks fluent Spanish but very little English. :^D

              • Avatar
                mudplanet • 6 months ago • parent

                En: All the research shows that proportionally the majority of drug users in the US are White.

                • Avatar
                  Manifestme • 6 months ago • parent

                  mudplanet: What research? Reveal your sources.

                  k k k polls

                  • Avatar
                    mudplanet • 6 months ago • parent

                    Manifestme: Here’s is but one study commissioned by the NIH. If you take the time to actually read about the issue you’ll find that numerous studies over decades indicate that while, proportionally, the majority of drug abusers are White (especially with cocaine, marijuana and meth) but that non-Whites are way over represented in drug convictions proportionally.

                    “According to the 2003 NSDUH, 38.2% of White young adults 18 to 25 years of age in the U.S. reported any illicit drug use in the past year, followed by African-American (30.6%) and Hispanic (27.5%) young adults (SAMHSA, 2004a). The same race/ethnicity patterns were observed for the past-year prevalence of marijuana use and marijuana use disorders among individuals 18 to 29 years of age according to data from the 2001–2002 National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC; Compton et al., 2004). Further, the past-year prevalence of DSM-IV marijuana use disorders increased significantly between 1991–1992 and 2001–2002, with the greatest increases observed among Hispanic and African-American young adults. In contrast, the prevalence of DSM-IV marijuana use disorders for White young adults did not change significantly over this same time period (Compton et al., 2004).” Race/Ethnicity and Gender Differences in Drug Use and Abuse Among College Students

                    I’ve noticed that you believe that things are true simply because you open that hole in that thing you call a face and sounds come out, while everyone else is “required to cite their sources.” learn to google it for yourselfyoustupidracistfuckandgetoveryourself

                    If you’re challenging my statement, just show some credible evidence that refutes it. This ‘credibility” thing works both ways.

                    • Avatar
                      Guest • 6 months ago • parent

                      mudplanet: Yes but there are more white people in America than blacks and hispanics. So proportionally speaking, a larger portion of the black and hispanic populations use drugs compared to the number of drug users that are in the white populations. JUS SAYIN. And you assuming the other user was racist is just stupid. Worry about the problems in the black community (income, crime, gangs), before tackling racism

                      • Avatar
                        sylvia67 • 6 months ago • parent

                        Guest: You really do not make your case any better by not spelling words correctly… and assuming that hispanics smoke weed more than ethnic groups is racist… FYI, so before you begin criticizing other people, please do us all a favor, and just don’t say anything because your lack of intelligence is offensive.

                        • Avatar
                          Blabadeblee • 3 months ago • parent

                          sylvia67: Actually the largest population in America is Hispanic. So that proves mudplanet’s point even further. The system is broken in more ways than one. But the facts are that there are more whites who use drugs, while at the same time, non-whites get harsher sentences when it comes to drug possession.

                      • Avatar
                        mudplanet • 6 months ago • parent

                        Guest: Whatamaroon, as bugs would say.

                        Rates of drug use are roughly comparable across race lines, with cocaine use actually higher among Whites, but incarceration for drug use much higher among Blacks and Hispanics, there’s no reason to be concerned that systemic racism is at work here or that anyone who pretends that racism isn’t involved is a racist prick. Jus Sayin

                         

                • Avatar
                  Ariakas77708 • 4 months ago • parent

                  mudplanet: SsSshhhh! We got a good thing goin, keep it in the ghetto, we dont want drug dealers walking across our kentucky bluegrass lawns! Hush hush!

              • Avatar
                Jose Manuel • 6 months ago • parent

                En: Any REAL “weed major” can speak and write English….many of them, even speak french and mandarin,….and have majors from Harvard and other fancy schools, with a lot US green printed dollars…education is not a problem…….do you know the meaning of monolingual ? …. saludos!

              • Avatar
                DaveMan50 • 3 months ago • parent

                En: Bull Shi…

          • Avatar
            Jon Harding • 3 months ago • parent

            Matthew Minard: An English Major? What regiment? (do you see what I did there?). I don’t know how the hell I ended up on this page- damn you Koush and your old newas… er, news… More Weed needed, methinks…

        • Avatar
          MeanCommentDetective • 6 months ago • parent

          John Fisher: This would be a run-on sentence: “Regardless of whether any of these things are words or not, the fact remains that a bunch of stoners that don’t even know how to use proper grammar when making arguments supporting the cause makes us all [be] cast as uneducated pot heads that can be cast aside without decent consideration.”

          “be cast” LOL! “They spot…” is wrong grammar as well. They “would or could spot” an error because they most likely know the difference between past present, future and indeterminate tenses in linguistics. You do not.

          Most likely, our opponents love this divisiveness. A win for the special interest groups!

          It’s spelled judgment not judgement. (Unless, of course, you are in the UK, which I seriously doubt.)

          Wow. You people are such mean idiots. This is too much fun! I could continue but I won’t humiliate you any longer.

          FYI: What you wrote was very personal. You were mean to someone who made a valid and interesting point.

        • Avatar
          Maxwell TDog • 3 months ago • parent

          John Fisher: truth is truth, and the truth here is, they can’t find near as many researchers who back their claim that marijuana is dangerous.
          They made the law to create compliance from minority groups (this in itself is illegal, to our Constitution) and when non-minorities got interested, they began a steady increase in enforcement and punishment.
          If “BAD GRAMMAR” worked against marijuana legalization…then Bush junior wouldn’t have gotten a second term (my test of this is that the man couldn’t speak ten sentences without making a major error)

        • Avatar
          Emptynikebox • 6 months ago • parent

          John Fisher: Sounds about right to me , we need more clean cut educated speaker , all I see is a bunch of stoned out hippies stepping up to the plate for us , not a good look

        • Avatar
          Douglas • 5 months ago • parent

          John Fisher: Well you all most got it right. Any one that does not know how to spell does not know what they are talking about. I know to many bad spellers out there that are a lot more inform on cannabis than you will every be. And I love how you believe the anti cannabis lover’s are reading what we have to say

        • Avatar
          DonGaudard • 6 months ago • parent

          John Fisher: I’m sorry, but your elitism is showing. I started smoking week in 1958 (that is NOT a type). Before I retired, I taught legal writing to law students. So much for your theory!!

      • Avatar
        Neuro555 • 6 months ago • parent

        o Grammarnazi- You obviously don’t know anything about Neuroscience and the spectrum of intelligence. Educate yourself and you might learn that the ability to process data in a linear way; hence your obsession with grammar, is not the highest indicator of IQ.

        • Avatar
          Durwood Mark Collier • 6 months ago • parent

          Neuro555: I think the point is not that proper grammar is an indicator of I.Q., rather the point is that human and social perception of an individual and their message is often greatly impacted by the presentation of that message. If the presentation is riddled with grammatical errors and typos, it might be perceived by the reader that the speaker put very little effort or thought into their “message.” After all, if the message was important, would they not put the time and effort into making sure it is correctly presented so readers might accurately understand the point being conveyed.

          • Avatar
            Legalizeit • 6 months ago • parent

            Durwood Mark Collier: <–IQ 147, i type as a speak, phonetically…My Grandfather was also the leading professor of Linguistics in this side of the country. I feel it takes a higher IQ to convey the same message with less words/letters… I C U, is much more productive than spelling out, I See You…While conveying the same message. Who’s the dummy? Or are we all dummies for arguing over grammar on an article that affects good peoples daily lives.

      • Avatar
        Clg215 • 6 months ago • parent

        Grammarnazi: you got the meaning, no need for judgement

  1. No trackbacks yet.

You must be logged in to post a comment.
%d bloggers like this: