Legalizing drugs.

[Quarterquack]

Apart from the occasional Belgian beer and French wine, I have no vested interest in any narcotic drug.

It has become apparent to me that residents of this forum are at the very least knowledgeable on the subject, so now I'd like to find out what the argumentative hype is. To the extents of my knowledge and professional social circles, I know of no one who supports this movement, with direct relation to the substances at hand themselves, with an annual salary higher than 5 grand a year (I'm just rounding up) (Unit of measurement: Mexican Pesos).

So why should I care? And if you're going to come at me from the prisons angle, bring statistics along. Also be ready to answer the question of what happens to all the inmates should it become legalized. What's going to happen to the "gateway drug" argument, and all the backing information that goes with it, then?

To me it seems like this argument started with a few friends around a table getting high;
Friend 1: You know what?! I found it! The prison system!
Friend 2: YEAH!
Friend 3: Legalize prisons!
But then they uncharacteristically remembered the idea after tripping.

[manker]

One benefit of legalisation that oft gets neglected in threads such as these is that Darwinism will rid us of a lot of fucking idiots.

I would suggest a period of around 6 months where the mark-up form production costs of heroin is 15% - to thin the herd, as it were.
After which time, the government is free to tax the fuck out of it and make it so that only the criminally idiotic or infeasibly rich want to buy it. A bit like now.

See, heroin is doing society a service. it's making the idiots congregate in undesirable areas, such as Glasgow, and it's either making them commit crimes in the most obvious way possible so they get caught - or they die. Whatever, they're out of the way of non-idiots.
Sure, there's collateral damage. Some non-idiots die too when caught up in robberies or fall on an aids infected needle in the playground. But we'd be remiss if we didn't consider the bigger picture.

Heroin; helping make Britain good :smilie4:

[mjmacky]

If you want to ask someone else to make you care, that's a bit of a leading trap. Rather, if you would like to point out all the reasons why you think we should incarcerate drug users, I'll gladly pick apart your argument (on all the conditions set within it). On the other hand, if you would like to recognize it for the farce that it is, then I will nod and say, "yes, water is very wet".

[Quarterquack]

If you want to ask someone else to make you care, that's a bit of a leading trap. Rather, if you would like to point out all the reasons why you think we should incarcerate drug users, I'll gladly pick apart your argument (on all the conditions set within it). On the other hand, if you would like to recognize it for the farce that it is, then I will nod and say, "yes, water is very wet".

You're far more sinister than people usually give you credit for. :yes:

You said that you arrived at your support of the movement based on logical merit alone. As such, I'd love to rationalize it if you point me in the right direction. However, accepting arguments like "It would help out prison systems" and "Regulation tax money will help the government" etc., especially at face value, are weak at best. Drug confiscations at borders are a trillion dollar industry. Regulating the same drugs would cost the government(s) a lot more in "under the table" money, and regulation body setups than it would letting them run amok. Cocaine alone, on the Canadian border alone, that was confiscated in busts alone in 2010 alone netted the Canadian government $80b. I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.

As for pointing out all the reasons to incarcerate drug users: That's a cheating shot. I in no way support or care about the current laws. My indifference to narcotic drug laws is on par with my indifference to 18 wheeler truck weight limit laws.

My interest remains the same. There's no leading trap. I've been known to on occasion start these threads because while I can't muster up enough care, someone might open my eyes to an opinion or exception that I could stand behind. Off the top of my head, I've started an "I am trying to like Ebert" thread a while ago on here. It wasn't successful, but I honestly wanted to give him a shot because I wanted to like him. Similarly with this. If there's a logical stand point that I'm missing, as opposed to apologetic reasoning to argue a point circularly, then I'll be happy to vote for it.

I guess what I'm looking for is the opposite of what's happening; instead of "Legalize drugs because", I want to hear more of "We had a massive problem balancing [blank] until we calculated the advantage of legalizing drugs and look at what we found!" [EDIT:] I'll even settle for a pharmaceuticals advantage point if one exists, considering a lot of these drugs are readily synthesizable and aren't under any form of protection. But I'll want to see some numbers or some reliable source backing it up.

[manker]

I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.:lol:

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.
#2. Why would income appear on a balance sheet.
#3. Canadia should employ accountants who value the absolute discretion their job assumes.

[Quarterquack]

I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.:lol:

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.
#2. Why would income appear on a balance sheet.
#3. Canadia should employ accountants who value the absolute discretion their job assumes.

What we lack in paper supply, we make up for by word of mouth in our village.
I hope that this one sentence sufficiently addressed all the issues you raised.

Don't be so cynical. I just added a disclaimer to hint that I didn't randomly pull a number out of my ass. :no:

[manker]

:lol:

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.
#2. Why would income appear on a balance sheet.
#3. Canadia should employ accountants who value the absolute discretion their job assumes.

What we lack in paper supply, we make up for by word of mouth in our village.
I hope that this one sentence sufficiently addressed all the issues you raised.

Don't be so cynical. I just added a disclaimer to hint that I didn't randomly pull a number out of my ass. :no:Oh did you. I had to give up reading when I read about your governmental drug accountant mate.

I mean I know it's the lounge but, ffs, put some effort in.
3/10

[Quarterquack]

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.

I, on the other hand, gave up when you showed your true presumptuous sexist side. I've learnt to accept humens of all species and intelligences.

I don't call you out on it, though. Cawk. 2/10 for trying.

Never mind, I used the word "himself". Backfired. :-/

[mjmacky]

You said that you arrived at your support of the movement based on logical merit alone. As such, I'd love to rationalize it if you point me in the right direction. However, accepting arguments like "It would help out prison systems" and "Regulation tax money will help the government" etc., especially at face value, are weak at best. Drug confiscations at borders are a trillion dollar industry. Regulating the same drugs would cost the government(s) a lot more in "under the table" money, and regulation body setups than it would letting them run amok. Cocaine alone, on the Canadian border alone, that was confiscated in busts alone in 2010 alone netted the Canadian government $80b. I have a pal who ran the balance sheets for the government himself.

As for pointing out all the reasons to incarcerate drug users: That's a cheating shot. I in no way support or care about the current laws. My indifference to narcotic drug laws is on par with my indifference to 18 wheeler truck weight limit laws.

My interest remains the same. There's no leading trap. I've been known to on occasion start these threads because while I can't muster up enough care, someone might open my eyes to an opinion or exception that I could stand behind. Off the top of my head, I've started an "I am trying to like Ebert" thread a while ago on here. It wasn't successful, but I honestly wanted to give him a shot because I wanted to like him. Similarly with this. If there's a logical stand point that I'm missing, as opposed to apologetic reasoning to argue a point circularly, then I'll be happy to vote for it.

I guess what I'm looking for is the opposite of what's happening; instead of "Legalize drugs because", I want to hear more of "We had a massive problem balancing [blank] until we calculated the advantage of legalizing drugs and look at what we found!" [EDIT:] I'll even settle for a pharmaceuticals advantage point if one exists, considering a lot of these drugs are readily synthesizable and aren't under any form of protection. But I'll want to see some numbers or some reliable source backing it up.

That might take more time than I'm really willing to put forth. If the decriminalization/legalization of marijuana (the easiest one) was on a ballot in front of you, which way would you vote right now?

I may touch upon some of the logical merits in a new paragraph, but first and foremost incarcerating people for recreational drug use (as its own end consequence) is just wrong and/or archaic futuredystopian. I could understand laws in place that make it illegal for sales practices that circumvent taxation, quality control, product safety, but not the inconsequential consumption of it. One can only continuously draw parallels with alcohol and tobacco here. I also don't want to see prisons benefit, I want to see them hurt.

Private prisons spawned as both a solution and opportunity during the first sorties of the drug war. Now it's a for profit business with accomplished lobbying force in local to federal governments. Their business requires incarcerated people, and their income is completely financed by the public dime. Organized opposition to the legalization of drugs comes from where? Take a guess.

[manker]

#1. Yup, sounds like a one man jawb.

I, on the other hand, gave up when you showed your true presumptuous sexist side. I've learnt to accept humens of all species and intelligences.

I don't call you out on it, though. Cawk. 2/10 for trying.

Never mind, I used the word "himself". Backfired. :-/
At least you tried :console:

In all fairness, I am completely aware that I have professional contemporaries of the female persuasion. They're often not as proficient as their male counterparts, what with being preoccupied with babies and periods, but they exist and frequently make a decent fist of it.

Going back to #2. As a decent spud, I feel duty-bound to elucidate because if your mate 'ran the balance sheets for the government', then his depiction as you describe means he is either making fun of you because he thinks you're thick or that he, in fact, he doesn't 'run the balance sheets' at all - in this scenario I imagine that subsequent to leaving the house of a morning, he stops the car and changes out of his suit and into garments of a janitorial nature more appropriate for cleaning the governmental bogs.

[mjmacky]

My thoughts on using budgeting arguments to justify criminalizing recreational drug use...
Analogy

It's sort of the same as using TTS's dick dimensions as qualifications for him to lose his virginity to a 20-month-old girl, just because the numbers fit doesn't make it a reasonable argument to proceed.

I mean sure, arguing numbers is a bit straight and leaves less room for interpretation, but they're so entirely peripheral to the matter at hand.

[manker]

Tts?

[mjmacky]

Tts?

Take your pick, reference
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/436666-tTC-Recruitment-the-other-one?p=3624691&viewfull=1#post3624691
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/439675-nightoath-is-a-what-s-sysop

Or just dismiss it as absolutely ridiculous bt stuff and forget you ever heard the initials. I was really just trying to come up with one member's name that's most likely to have the smallest dick on FST, and he was really the first I could come up with.

[Squeamous]

Apart from the occasional Belgian beer and French wine, I have no vested interest in any narcotic drug.

It has become apparent to me that residents of this forum are at the very least knowledgeable on the subject, so now I'd like to find out what the argumentative hype is. To the extents of my knowledge and professional social circles, I know of no one who supports this movement, with direct relation to the substances at hand themselves, with an annual salary higher than 5 grand a year (I'm just rounding up) (Unit of measurement: Mexican Pesos).

So why should I care? And if you're going to come at me from the prisons angle, bring statistics along. Also be ready to answer the question of what happens to all the inmates should it become legalized. What's going to happen to the "gateway drug" argument, and all the backing information that goes with it, then?

To me it seems like this argument started with a few friends around a table getting high;
Friend 1: You know what?! I found it! The prison system!
Friend 2: YEAH!
Friend 3: Legalize prisons!
But then they uncharacteristically remembered the idea after tripping.

The reason you have a skewed view of the average user is because you only see the cases who have taken a fall into the gutter. You don't see all the high functioning alcoholics and drug users because they're going about their daily business fine. There's no such thing as a gateway drug either, only a gateway lifestyle. But it's easier to blame the drug as the cause when really it's just the symptom. Drugs could be legalised if a society was healthy.

[manker]

You don't see all the high functioning alcoholics and drug users because they're going about their daily business fine. There's no such thing as a gateway drug either, only a gateway lifestyle. But it's easier to blame the drug as the cause when really it's just the symptom. Drugs could be legalised if a society was healthy.So you're with me.
Flood the streets with cheap heroin to improve society though super-heated Darwinism and then legalise everything.

Fuck yeah.

[manker]

Tts?

Take your pick, reference
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/436666-tTC-Recruitment-the-other-one?p=3624691&viewfull=1#post3624691
http://filesharingtalk.com/threads/439675-nightoath-is-a-what-s-sysop

Or just dismiss it as absolutely ridiculous bt stuff and forget you ever heard the initials. I was really just trying to come up with one member's name that's most likely to have the smallest dick on FST, and he was really the first I could come up with.Did you and mbm somehow bumble your way into a section of fst where everyone used cyrillic.
WTF was that.

[Squeamous]

So you're with me.
Flood the streets with cheap heroin to improve society though super-heated Darwinism and then legalise everything.

Fuck yeah.

I think you'll find you're with me :snooty:

[manker]

So you're with me.
Flood the streets with cheap heroin to improve society though super-heated Darwinism and then legalise everything.

Fuck yeah.

I think you'll find you're with me :snooty:That's okay. You can be the blonde, slightly robotic, acceptable face of my radical right-wing methods of achieving left wing societal utopia.
I'll remain in the background, manipulating your actions with deft and probing fingers. No one will suspect a thing.
It'll be brill.

[Squeamous]

That's okay. You can be the blonde, slightly robotic, acceptable face of my radical right-wing methods of achieving left wing societal utopia.
I'll remain in the background, manipulating your actions with deft and probing fingers. No one will suspect a thing.
It'll be brill.

Aw, you remembered I'm blonde. Thats........creepy.
Sounds like you're asking me to be some sort of Sarah Palin or Margaret Thatcher figure. Well we all know what happens there. One minute you're deftly probing away in the background, and the next your balls are instantly in a vice being squeezed to bursting like a couple of over-ripe tomatoes.
When would you like to start?

[Alien5]

It amazes me that Alcohol is responsible more deaths than heroin yet people still think its an amazing, harmless, family drug. I think Most people wouldn't even call it a drug.

[manker]

You're so sweet.
That's not creepy. Creepy wouldn't even be saving a couple of pictures to my fst folder because you look like Jeri Ryan.
Creepy would be saving the phoatieshawps of those pics replete with various borg implants and that see-thro one that Barbie did :mellow:

I think that's what JP did. Yes. JP. That absolute chancer.

[manker]

In other news; Allen can't hold his beer :smilie4:

[Alien5]

I don't think they are called drug confiscations, drug seizures I think sounds more American.

A Drug confiscation doesn't sound as serious does it?

[Biggles]

I don't think they are called drug confiscations, drug seizures I think sounds more American.

A Drug confiscation doesn't sound as serious does it?

I don't think they give back to you at the end of class, no.

[manker]

I don't think they are called drug confiscations, drug seizures I think sounds more American.

A Drug confiscation doesn't sound as serious does it?

I don't think they give back to you at the end of class, no.:glag:

[Squeamous]

It amazes me that Alcohol is responsible more deaths than heroin yet people still think its an amazing, harmless, family drug. I think Most people wouldn't even call it a drug.

I'd call it a necessity, especially around here.


You're so sweet.
That's not creepy. Creepy wouldn't even be saving a couple of pictures to my fst folder because you look like Jeri Ryan.
Creepy would be saving the phoatieshawps of those pics replete with various borg implants and that see-thro one that Barbie did :mellow:

I think that's what JP did. Yes. JP. That absolute chancer.

I've never trusted that JP. The Scots are a shifty bunch. You're alright though, you'd never do anything like that :happy:

[Alien5]

I would be ashamed to write such a long article about government drug seizures without reading just a little bit about the actual subject you are trying to talk about first.

[manker]

You're so sweet.
That's not creepy. Creepy wouldn't even be saving a couple of pictures to my fst folder because you look like Jeri Ryan.
Creepy would be saving the phoatieshawps of those pics replete with various borg implants and that see-thro one that Barbie did :mellow:

I think that's what JP did. Yes. JP. That absolute chancer.

I've never trusted that JP. The Scots are a shifty bunch. You're alright though, you'd never do anything like that :happy:Perish the thought.

:ermm:

[Biggles]

I'd call it a necessity, especially around here.


You're so sweet.
That's not creepy. Creepy wouldn't even be saving a couple of pictures to my fst folder because you look like Jeri Ryan.
Creepy would be saving the phoatieshawps of those pics replete with various borg implants and that see-thro one that Barbie did :mellow:

I think that's what JP did. Yes. JP. That absolute chancer.

I've never trusted that JP. The Scots are a shifty bunch. You're alright though, you'd never do anything like that :happy:

Yes, yes we are :shifty:

To be fair to JP he probably saved the pictures to prop up a shoogly table leg to ensure no prize apple was spilt. A man of priorities and principle.

[manker]

I would be ashamed to write such a long article about government drug seizures without reading just a little bit about the actual subject you are trying to talk about first.In his defence, his mate runs the balance sheets.

Also, I never research any of the pish I write on here.
I get away with it though because I post in a confident manner and turn the thread around into sexual innuendo on the rare occasion I'm challenged.

[Artemis]

It amazes me that Alcohol is responsible more deaths than heroin yet people still think its an amazing, harmless, family drug. I think Most people wouldn't even call it a drug.

Alcohol is a legalised government regulated and TAXED drug, it is therefore acceptable to the government, while trying to get your average street corner speedfreak to cough up some of his hard earned dough before he smokes it, is not exactly a reliable revenue stream. :blink:

Then of course there is the secondary income to the government from all the D.U.I. fines as well as the tertiary income from the scrap metal prices (forever spiralling upward) from the cars they get to crush.

[Barbarossa]

I wonder how the tax alcohol generates compares to the taxpayers money that is spent in hospitals dealing with alcohol related illnesses and injuries...

[Squeamous]

To be fair obesity costs health services far more. Yup, that's right, food is more dangerous than crack.

[OlegL]

All drugs should be legalized and people who are in prison for drug dealing should be freed unless they committed other more serious crimes. As far as I know, fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes enjoyed smoking opium or taking cocaine. Yes, he's just a fictional character, but reality and fiction often go hand in hand. So many murders would have been prevented if the U.S. government had legalized all drugs. Drugs are not evil; they help a human being.

[Barbarossa]

All drugs should be legalized and people who are in prison for drug dealing should be freed unless they committed other more serious crimes. As far as I know, fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes enjoyed smoking opium or taking cocaine. Yes, he's just a fictional character, but reality and fiction often go hand in hand. So many murders would have been prevented if the U.S. government had legalized all drugs. Drugs are not evil; they help a human being.

:blink:

[Squeamous]

Suddenly I feel the urge for some drugs. Are many of your friends and relatives on crack Oleg?

[OlegL]

No, the people I am acquainted with smoke weed. I don't know anyone who's on crack.

[megabyteme]

All drugs should be legalized and people who are in prison for drug dealing should be freed unless they committed other more serious crimes. As far as I know, fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes enjoyed smoking opium or taking cocaine. Yes, he's just a fictional character, but reality and fiction often go hand in hand. So many murders would have been prevented if the U.S. government had legalized all drugs. Drugs are not evil; they help a human being.

By themselves, each of these words is harmless. However, in this exact combination you have assembled them, each of us is now irrevocably dumber for having read them. How do you manage such a feat, Oleg?

[OlegL]

All drugs should be legalized and people who are in prison for drug dealing should be freed unless they committed other more serious crimes. As far as I know, fictional characters such as Sherlock Holmes enjoyed smoking opium or taking cocaine. Yes, he's just a fictional character, but reality and fiction often go hand in hand. So many murders would have been prevented if the U.S. government had legalized all drugs. Drugs are not evil; they help a human being.

By themselves, each of these words is harmless. However, in this exact combination you have assembled them, each of us is now irrevocably dumber for having read them. How do you manage such a feat, Oleg?

You know, sometimes I wish I had lived in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s when people were less prejudiced against drugs. Remember that author of the book "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"? Wasn't he high in the 1950s or 60s? Remember other talented folks such as Burroughs or Alan Ginsburg (my fellow Jew, by the way)? Don't you sometimes wish you had seen them taking drugs?... But, oh horror! - Ronald Reagan came to power in the 80s and he made people more prejudiced against drugs. I don't think I said anything dumb. I believe that if all drugs were legalized, there would be less drug-related murders. If people were less prejudiced against drugs, we would have less problems.

[IdolEyes787]

People were more prejudice against drugs in 1950s, 1960s. Drugs being then part of the "counterculture" and seen as an act of rebellion .Someplace around 1970-1980 they became tied to the club scene and casual sex. Now suburban soccer Moms do drugs as they are just another quick and easy way of making the World go away.

[OlegL]

People were more prejudice against drugs in 1950s, 1960s. Drugs being then part of the "counterculture" and seen as an act of rebellion .Someplace around 1970-1980 they became tied to the club scene and casual sex. Now suburban soccer Moms do drugs as they are just another quick and easy way of making the World go away.

Well, in the 1960s, many people were against the hippie counter-cultural rebellion, but educated middle class people were not strongly opposed to drugs.

[megabyteme]

You know, sometimes I wish I had lived in the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s when people were less prejudiced against drugs.

If this were the 1950s, 1960s, or 1970s... you'd have to get a job. :fear:

[IdolEyes787]

Well, in the 1960s, many people were against the hippie counter-cultural rebellion, but educated middle class people were not strongly opposed to drugs.

And you know this to be true exactly how?:mellow:

[IdolEyes787]

Seeing you were born in the mid 80's like.

[OlegL]

megabyteme, well, as you know, I am on SSI, and, as far as I know, Social Security was created when Roosevelt was President in the 1930s...
IdolEyes, someone who lived during that era told me that people were less prejudiced against drugs than they are now.

[zot]

There are a lot of vested interests who would stand to lose a lot of money if recreational drugs were legalized -- and I don't mean the street-corner drug dealers.

Imagine the police departments laying off their entire narc division and quitting buying all that expensive SWAT gear (which is used almost exclusively for drug raids) causing the companies that make those products go broke. There would be a lot fewer people in prisons, so those multi-billion dollar prison-construction and service industries would take a big hit.

Like it or not, the criminal 'justice' system forms a major part of our economy. Because the prohibition on drugs keeps a lot of people employed and makes a lot of money for a lot of corporations, so it should come as no surprise that whenever proposals come up for legalizing/decriminalizing drugs -- such as California's recent Proposition 19 -- there is always heavy lobbying and campaigning against it.

[megabyteme]

megabyteme, well, as you know, I am on SSI, and, as far as I know, Social Security was created when Roosevelt was President in the 1930s...
IdolEyes, someone who lived during that era told me that people were less prejudiced against drugs than they are now.

Yes, but your bullshit "diagnosis" would not have received any money.

[IdolEyes787]

megabyteme, well, as you know, I am on SSI, and, as far as I know, Social Security was created when Roosevelt was President in the 1930s...
IdolEyes, someone who lived during that era told me that people were less prejudiced against drugs than they are now.

Wouldn't that assumption be totally dependent on his/her personal experience?
I'm taking a stab in the dark here but I would guess tha a Berkeley college student and a farmer from Idaho would probably have two different stories to tell.

[IdolEyes787]

Btw I'm telling you that they weren't so who you gonna believe?

Remember Canadians don't lie.

Remember Canadians who aren't politicians don't lie.

[OlegL]

Well, IdolEyes, since you are one of the most intelligent people on this board, I believe you. :)

[mjmacky]

Well, IdolEyes, since you are one of the most intelligent people on this board, I believe you. :)

I'm not sure he's ever demonstrated that, though he's never claimed any intelligence either. What exactly did you choose to believe in now?

[OlegL]

I believe him when he says that many folks were prejudiced against drugs during the psychedelic era of the 60s. And speaking of IdolEyes, he has never made any dumb posts on this board; that's why I believe he's intelligent.

[IdolEyes787]

I'm also a flower child and know about stuff like this.

[IdolEyes787]

And by stuff I mean pointless comments.

[IdolEyes787]

Even on a bad day I am smarterer than mjmacky though.

[IdolEyes787]

Well, IdolEyes, since you are one of the most intelligent people on this board....:)

I am also smort enough to know the phrase "Damning with faint praise"

[mjmacky]

Even on a bad day I am smarterer than mjmacky though.

Another thing I like about Idol is his sense of humor.

[manker]

Even on a bad day I am smarterer than mjmacky though.

Another thing I like about Idol is his sense of humor.We can't all be autistic savants. Good thing too.

Altho' I'd like to be one for a day. Very much like I'd want a vagina for a day.
I'd cram as much stuff as I could fit into my new brain/vagina til the early onset of haemorrhage.

The experience would improve me as a person, I think :eyebrows:

[mjmacky]

I would have been in heavy praise of the label "autistic savant", but some of the qualifications had to be stretched to match what I do (which is why I ultimately didn't endorse it). Not that I don't have anything against the types, they're quite entertaining.

93781

[IdolEyes787]

Another thing I like about Idol is his sense of humor.We can't all be autistic savants. Good thing too.

Altho' I'd like to be one for a day. Very much like I'd want a vagina for a day.
I'd cram as much stuff as I could fit into my new brain/vagina til the early onset of haemorrhage.

The experience would improve me as a person, I think :eyebrows:

Possible punchlines :

That might be stretching it a bit.
If nothing else at least you'd have a good story to tell the Grand-kids.
Those were the salad days.

[Artemis]

Another thing I like about Idol is his sense of humor.We can't all be autistic savants. Good thing too.

Altho' I'd like to be one for a day. Very much like I'd want a vagina for a day.
I'd cram as much stuff as I could fit into my new brain/vagina til the early onset of haemorrhage.

The experience would improve me as a person, I think :eyebrows:


Squeamous can give you some tips on cramming things into orifices. The weed whacker is still missing in action last I heard :fear:

[OlegL]

Btw I'm telling you that they weren't so who you gonna believe?

Remember Canadians don't lie.

Remember Canadians who aren't politicians don't lie.

Well, maybe Canadians don't lie, but the author of this thread sometimes acts like a complete dumb ass and he's Canadian. :)

[megabyteme]

Well, maybe Canadians don't lie, but the author of this thread sometimes acts like a complete dumb ass and he's Canadian. :)

He's also the one who stole the weed whacker...

[TheScrab]

Squeamous can give you some tips on cramming things into orifices. The weed whacker is still missing in action last I heard :fear: haha

[Mr. Mulder]

keep them illegal so i can feel like a big man when i go into our bathroom or communal garden to do them.

[Squeamous]

I would have been in heavy praise of the label "autistic savant", but some of the qualifications had to be stretched to match what I do (which is why I ultimately didn't endorse it). Not that I don't have anything against the types, they're quite entertaining.

93781

Au contraire. It's just that you so perfectly fit the behaviour patterns of an autistic savant (albeit a high functioning one). At first the fact you claimed to be well liked and sociable gave me some trouble, until I realised socialising to you is just another formula into which you plug a set of variable parameters.

Macky at a Fourth of July street party:
93873

Macky expressing concern that someone moved his calculator from its designated place next to his hole punch:
93877

Macky writing a love letter to Benzene:
93878

[megabyteme]

^:lol:

I think that one has legs, Sq. :happy:

[mjmacky]

I would have been in heavy praise of the label "autistic savant", but some of the qualifications had to be stretched to match what I do (which is why I ultimately didn't endorse it). Not that I don't have anything against the types, they're quite entertaining.

Au contraire. It's just that you so perfectly fit the behaviour patterns of an autistic savant (albeit a high functioning one). At first the fact you claimed to be well liked and sociable gave me some trouble, until I realised socialising to you is just another formula into which you plug a set of variable parameters.

Your social/related ones kind of might work off handedly, but I'll highlight the ones that you were stretching. I feel if you spent some more time constructing the argument, you could have made it work.


Think about it: good with maths, ability to drone on and on with meticulous verbosity on subjects of no interest to anyone else, obsessive attention to detail, able to function socially only through a series of learned routines rather than through any real empathy. I could go on but suffice it to say:

Your qualifier is based on subject matter, of which I stick to interesting topics (without delving into pop culture too much). Obsessive attention to detail was also forced. Though I pick at technical details and literal nuances, it's usually to annoy someone rather than a driven interest. The context of these things matter.

I could certainly make a much more successful argument, but then I'd be doing all the work for you. I can't imagine a reason I'd ever be inspired to do that.

There is one other problem, Tom Cruise is alive in all those scenes. There's no way I'd permit that.

[OlegL]

Well, maybe Canadians don't lie, but the author of this thread sometimes acts like a complete dumb ass and he's Canadian. :)

He's also the one who stole the weed whacker...

He's a retard.

[dinges]

Apart from the occasional Belgian beer and French wine, I have no vested interest in any narcotic drug.

It has become apparent to me that residents of this forum are at the very least knowledgeable on the subject, so now I'd like to find out what the argumentative hype is. To the extents of my knowledge and professional social circles, I know of no one who supports this movement, with direct relation to the substances at hand themselves, with an annual salary higher than 5 grand a year (I'm just rounding up) (Unit of measurement: Mexican Pesos).



Well here is one person. Annual salary higher than 200 grand (in swiss franks). Weed is widespread here but alas a legalization referendum 2 years ago failed by 45/55%. Estimated # of users is 1 million on a population of 8 million. Police hardly give it any attention. I grow my own (4 plants a year) while having a wife and 2 teenage kids and a good (IT) job at a bank. There are many like me.

We do not harm anyone, there is no reason to persecute us and even less to lock us away (society would collapse).

The question should never be why to legalize something, but why to prohibit something. Prohibition is not a normal state of things and should be underpinned with extremely good arguments before starting such a blunt policy.

I don't want to go into the details here (there are numerous other forums on the topic elsewhere), but at least for weed there are 0 arguments to have it outlawed. Everything behind the prohibition is based upon lies and caused by vested interests.

Although I have nothing with harder drugs, never used them and never intend to do so even once, I think that prohibitions net effects even for these substances are negative and people and society would be better of without prohibition. Instead, you need health care, regulation and education.

b.t.w. I donate quite a bit to various legalization movements (and to the EFF and other organizations that fight for civil liberties).

[Squeamous]

Your social/related ones kind of might work off handedly, but I'll highlight the ones that you were stretching. I feel if you spent some more time constructing the argument, you could have made it work.


I would, but I'm afraid I'm not an autistic savant and so just don't have that kind of obsessive attention to detail.
Obsessive attention to detail like this:



Think about it: good with maths, ability to drone on and on with meticulous verbosity on subjects of no interest to anyone else, obsessive attention to detail, able to function socially only through a series of learned routines rather than through any real empathy. I could go on but suffice it to say:

Your qualifier is based on subject matter, of which I stick to interesting topics (without delving into pop culture too much). Obsessive attention to detail was also forced. Though I pick at technical details and literal nuances, it's usually to annoy someone rather than a driven interest. The context of these things matter.

I could certainly make a much more successful argument, but then I'd be doing all the work for you. I can't imagine a reason I'd ever be inspired to do that.

There is one other problem, Tom Cruise is alive in all those scenes. There's no way I'd permit that.

You either saved my comment for future reference or you went all the way back through the threads to find it. You couldn't just paraphrase. But then paraphrasing would require a level of social/conversational dexterity you don't possess. Rainman.

[manker]

:glag:

I also think it's cute that Mary thinks that the untalented glebe on An Idiot Abroad is an autistic savant.
Only an autistic savant would think such a thing. Trufax.

[Squeamous]

:glag:

I also think it's cute that Mary thinks that the untalented glebe on An Idiot Abroad is an autistic savant.
Only an autistic savant would think such a thing. Trufax.

I think he put that meme up simply because he knows we're English and was trying to find an English reference we might be able to relate to :smilie4:

[manker]

Can someone tell me when she apologises so I can take her off ignore. kthnx

[Squeamous]

I thought Mary was Macky? Confused.

[football]

I thought Mary was Macky? Confused.Mary is macky and your previous comment was both insightful and witty - manker, however, isn't English.

[mjmacky]

You either saved my comment for future reference or you went all the way back through the threads to find it. You couldn't just paraphrase. But then paraphrasing would require a level of social/conversational dexterity you don't possess. Rainman.

I went back, I'm careful like that. Also, it was incredibly easy since that thread was already open in another tab, and my settings max out # posts per page. Cabalo hates that I do that.

About the other thing you suggested, it would be totally pointless to make my own index of posts made by myself or other people since that's a function inherent in a forum's design! I almost want to bold all of that and go all caps. Another neat trick, just do an advanced search typing at least one word you remember, and specify username, the results come back in a very relevant fashion. That's how, earlier today, I found my posts messing with some person wanting to trade for CartonChaos.


I also think it's cute that Mary thinks that the untalented glebe on An Idiot Abroad is an autistic savant.
Only an autistic savant would think such a thing. Trufax.

The reason I brought Karl into this is because I once uttered the near redundancy of "autistic savant", literally, while describing Mr. Pilkington. My first perception when watching the Ricky Gervais show was that he was just an absolute moron. Then I started thinking he's probably developmentally disabled. In continuation of the new assumption, I started finding his perspective uniquely fascinating. He has a sort of purely logical perspective unencumbered by critical thought, like a child, but with the life experience of an adult.

[mjmacky]

I thought Mary was Macky? Confused.Mary is macky and your previous comment was both insightful and witty - manker, however, isn't English.

That's all find and dander, but who the hell are you?

[manker]

The reason I brought Karl into this is because I once uttered the near redundancy of "autistic savant", literally, while describing Mr. Pilkington. My first perception when watching the Ricky Gervais show was that he was just an absolute moron. Then I started thinking he's probably developmentally disabled. In continuation of the new assumption, I started finding his perspective uniquely fascinating. He has a sort of purely logical perspective unencumbered by critical thought, like a child, but with the life experience of an adult.Nah, he's just a northerner (we say what we like and we like what we bloody well say).
If your diagnosis is correct then Lancashire and Yorkshire possess the same autistic savant to non-autistic savant ratio as the area twixt your monitor and the chair-back.

You do have me at a disadvantage, however. I downloaded series one and got halfway thro' the first ep before I decided that it was a shite travel show not worthy of my attention.

[Squeamous]

Manker isn't English? You mean I've allowed myself to thaw to a virtual stranger? I feel sullied.


I went back, I'm careful like that. Also, it was incredibly easy since that thread was already open in another tab, and my settings max out # posts per page. Cabalo hates that I do that.

About the other thing you suggested, it would be totally pointless to make my own index of posts made by myself or other people since that's a function inherent in a forum's design! I almost want to bold all of that and go all caps. Another neat trick, just do an advanced search typing at least one word you remember, and specify username, the results come back in a very relevant fashion. That's how, earlier today, I found my posts messing with some person wanting to trade for CartonChaos.

Is there anything else you'd like to say before they take you back to your room? I might not be able to come and visit you for a little while. Wanna touch heads maybe? Have a 'moment'?


The reason I brought Karl into this is because I once uttered the near redundancy of "autistic savant", literally, while describing Mr. Pilkington. My first perception when watching the Ricky Gervais show was that he was just an absolute moron. Then I started thinking he's probably developmentally disabled. In continuation of the new assumption, I started finding his perspective uniquely fascinating. He has a sort of purely logical perspective unencumbered by critical thought, like a child, but with the life experience of an adult.

He's not clever enough, that's why it's 'autistic savant'. He's just autistic. Anyway, since when did the lunatics start diagnosing the asylum? Get back in your cell.

[mjmacky]

You do have me at a disadvantage, however. I downloaded series one and got halfway thro' the first ep before I decided that it was a shite travel show not worthy of my attention.

Referencing the wrong show. I'm talking about the one where they animated their podcasts.

-MyJohnsonMilky



Is there anything else you'd like to say before they take you back to your room? I might not be able to come and visit you for a little while. Wanna touch heads maybe? Have a 'moment'?

He's not clever enough, that's why it's 'autistic savant'. He's just autistic. Anyway, since when did the lunatics start diagnosing the asylum? Get back in your cell.

Sure... I sort of get a feeling you don't like criticism. In the spirit of that thought, I think you accidentally butchered one or two of your sentences, I've put some underliner.

P.S. No, I do not want to rub my cock against your cock. I really don't understand the fetish, but don't take this as disapproval.

[manker]

i totally thawed you
scoreee :blushing:

[Squeamous]

Sure... I sort of get a feeling you don't like criticism. In the spirit of that thought, I think you accidentally butchered one or two of your sentences, I've put some underliner.

P.S. No, I do not want to rub my cock against your cock. I really don't understand the fetish, but don't take this as disapproval.


Thanks, but although writing fairly well comes naturally to me and I try not to butcher my language through neglect or ignorance, I don't consider absolute perfection necessary (particularly if it disrupts the flow of my thoughts). I'll go for a natural style of written discourse every time, and assume that as long as I am understood then the desired outcome of language has been achieved if not perfect execution.


i totally thawed you
scoreee :blushing:

It's ok, don't do it again.

[Barbarossa]

I thought Mary was Macky? Confused.Mary is macky and your previous comment was both insightful and witty - manker, however, isn't English.

There's no way you remembered this password on your own, after all this time :dry:

You must have written it down before you went to prison, or something else...

[manker]

:lol:

idk if you remember what it was but I left the pass for this account as what you reset it to last time :wub:

You should log in sometime and read my saved PMs. I looked at a few the other night.
My fave was Ben asking me not to call him Ben on the board because it's his real name - thus ensuring that I, and now everyone else, call him exactly that.

[Something Else]

Cunt :pinch:

[manker]

In all fairness, I was pretty subtle about it.
You probably didn't even realise that I forwarded your PM on to JP and other like-minded cunts to ensure that they also exclusively referred to you as ben :happy:

[Something Else]

I think you also forwarded it to one of my accounts. :dry:

[manker]

:lol:
Quite a mix-up.
But not nearly so bad as when I accidentally CC'd cheese into a PM when I was cybering his sister :ermm:

[manker]

luckily it wasn't the first time he'd seen my cawk

[manker]

or his sister's tits :smilie4:

[mjmacky]

I'll go for a natural style of written discourse every time, and assume that as long as I am understood then the desired outcome of language has been achieved if not perfect execution.

But you ended up making your point ambiguous as a result, it could have gone (could still go) either way, and that's the only reason I pointed it out. It's OK not to be perfect, there can be only one mjmacky.

[Squeamous]

I'll go for a natural style of written discourse every time, and assume that as long as I am understood then the desired outcome of language has been achieved if not perfect execution.

But you ended up making your point ambiguous as a result, it could have gone (could still go) either way, and that's the only reason I pointed it out. It's OK not to be perfect, there can be only one mjmacky.

I wasn't aware of any ambiguity. Anyway, you should see this as the starting point along the route to diagnosis. This is only the beginning of your journey to becoming a normal functional human being.

[mjmacky]

This is only the beginning of your journey to becoming a normal functional human being.

OK, but what's in it for me?

[Squeamous]

This is only the beginning of your journey to becoming a normal functional human being.

OK, but what's in it for me?

I hadn't really thought about it from your point of view :ermm:

[mjmacky]

I hadn't really thought about it from your point of view :ermm:

1. You should have, given that it's an almost flawless point of view.
2. Statement 1 was made from my point of view, if you disagree with it, see statement 1.

[anigav]

wtf, went through all the 10 pages in anticipation of knowledge on legal drug. All I see is people rubbing their cock:ermm:

[chalice]

wtf, went through all the 10 pages in anticipation of knowledge on legal drug. All I see is people rubbing their cock:ermm:

That implies that there's a communal cock we all take turns rubbing.

You fucking monkey.

[anigav]

Communal or Communist?

[mjmacky]

wtf, went through all the 10 pages in anticipation of knowledge on legal drug. All I see is people rubbing their cock:ermm:

That implies that there's a communal cock we all take turns rubbing.

You fucking monkey.

The communal cock is mine, all mine!

[anigav]

That implies that there's a communal cock we all take turns rubbing.

You fucking monkey.

The communal cock is mine, all mine!

That's why you are cock scoping..

[megabyteme]

The communal cock is mine, all mine!

I need to reserve it for around 6 PM this evening (Pacific time zone). Won't get it dirty, just planning to squirt one out on the wife's face. Should be back in rotation by 6:15 PM...

Thanks.


Notes to communal members:

Do not allow Oleg to join in rotation. He'll check it out, and never use it.

Idol is still authorized, but must thoroughly clean it. Maple syrup dried in the end last time, causing my wife to chew on it. :pinch:

Macky loses his deposit after returning it with what appears to be barbed wire scars.

Chalice appears to only use his rotation on his birthday, so I feel he should get a discount on his membership dues.

Rings is hereby removed, and permanently banned, for violations in the Terms of Use Agreement. :dry:

Manker seems to get more use than anyone else (who woulda thunk an accountant would get the most action of us :unsure: ); however, as Chalice receives a discount, Manker's dues should increase.

[Artemis]

The communal cock is mine, all mine!

I need to reserve it for around 6 PM this evening (Pacific time zone). Won't get it dirty, just planning to squirt one out on the wife's face. Should be back in rotation by 6:15 PM...

Thanks.


Notes to communal members:

Do not allow Oleg to join in rotation. He'll check it out, and never use it.

Idol is still authorized, but must thoroughly clean it. Maple syrup dried in the end last time, causing my wife to chew on it. :pinch:

Macky loses his deposit after returning it with what appears to be barbed wire scars.

Chalice appears to only use his rotation on his birthday, so I feel he should get a discount on his membership dues.

Rings is hereby removed, and permanently banned, for violations in the Terms of Use Agreement. :dry:

Manker seems to get more use than anyone else (who woulda thunk an accountant would get the most action of us :unsure: ); however, as Chalice receives a discount, Manker's dues should increase.

It's not that Oleg won't use it, I'm pretty sure he must have a strongly developed forearm by now, it's just that he won't/can't use it on anyone else. So maybe if his library card gets validated can book it out on proviso he also buys ALOT of lube, or is it insured for chafing ?

As for you MBM, why would you need to check out the communal cock anyway, you're married and have children (plural) don't you know that that's it job done, you're now back to flying solo :sadwalk:

[anigav]

OP please change the title of this thread to Communal Cock Scoping?

[Artemis]

OP please change the title of this thread to Communal Cock Scoping?

Everyone else is quite prepared to use the communal cock, it is only you that seem to be interested in cock scoping, is there something you aren't telling us ?

[mjmacky]

Chalice appears to only use his rotation on his birthday, so I feel he should get a discount on his membership dues.

I disagree with the discount, he only uses his real name on his birthday. All other times he's using it, he's breaking in and using a pseudonym. Apparently he's behind the vagrant problem we thought we were having.

Also, remember everyone to bring your own towel and not to leave it behind when you're done with it (especially Idol). I hate that I'm the only picking up and washing the towels, you're adults now and there's really no need for me to be reminding you how to act like ones. Another thing, the neighbors are writing letters about excessive noise past 11 p.m. Please remember to keep it down, not for their sake, but so that we don't lose our late night privileges when it gets used most.

[megabyteme]

Apparently he's behind the vagrant problem we thought we were having.

I've found that the graffiti scribbled on it rubs off rather easily, so it hasn't been much of a problem. :idunno:

[Barbarossa]

Cunt :pinch:

To be fair, "Benchez" wasn't exactly the most well-thought out pseudonym in the world :dry:

[Squeamous]

When can I borrow it? Mary wants me to bend him over in his shed, but I don't possess the necessary equipment :(

[manker]

When can I borrow it? Mary wants me to bend him over in his shed, but I don't possess the necessary equipment :(Improvise.
You're in a shed ffs.

[anigav]

OP please change the title of this thread to Communal Cock Scoping?

Everyone else is quite prepared to use the communal cock, it is only you that seem to be interested in cock scoping, is there something you aren't telling us ?

Well they might have already scoped it.. they are a quite progressive stock

[mjmacky]

When can I borrow it? Mary wants me to bend him over in his shed, but I don't possess the necessary equipment :(

I'm beginning to think you might be misrepresenting yourself.

[Barbarossa]

Did I mention I also have an attic, a garage and an office (Well, 40% of the spare room, anyway). All valid locations for refuge.

I don't need the shed. I'm OK with the fact that it's a wendy house now.



I'm really OK.

[manker]

Did I mention I also have an attic, a garage and an office (Well, 40% of the spare room, anyway). All valid locations for refuge.

I don't need the shed. I'm OK with the fact that it's a wendy house now.



I'm really OK.:o

Your first post sans smilies since ... forever ... means that you're pretty fucking far from okay*.
what film was that from, some tarantino film maybe?

The solution is to get the shed back to being a shed. The question is how* :smilie4:


without you getting into loads of trouble. no one wants that. no one :no:
We need answers and we need them now.

[Barbarossa]

Did I mention I also have an attic, a garage and an office (Well, 40% of the spare room, anyway). All valid locations for refuge.

I don't need the shed. I'm OK with the fact that it's a wendy house now.



I'm really OK.:o

Your first post sans smilies since ... forever ... means that you're pretty fucking far from okay*.
what film was that from, some tarantino film maybe?

The solution is to get the shed back to being a shed. The question is how* :smilie4:


without you getting into loads of trouble. no one wants that. no one :no:
We need answers and we need them now.

:emo:

I could by a proper wendy house, and use that as a shed :sly:

[manker]

YEAH
That'd show 'em like a fox.

Make sure it's one of the ones with a separate section for tea-parties and stuff.

[Barbarossa]

Oh absolutely! :yes:

[mjmacky]

means that you're pretty fucking far from okay*.
what film was that from, some tarantino film maybe?

I'm pretty sure it's from Pulp Fiction if anybody cares, though I don't remember who said it. I'm feeling like it was Ving Rhames.

[Artemis]

means that you're pretty fucking far from okay*.
what film was that from, some tarantino film maybe?

I'm pretty sure it's from Pulp Fiction if anybody cares, though I don't remember who said it. I'm feeling like it was Ving Rhames.

Yes it was Ving Rhames character Marsellus, saying he was pretty fucking far from Okay, after being saved from the rapists. Personally I like what he says next:

Butch (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000246/): You okay?
Marsellus (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000609/): Naw man. I'm pretty fuckin' far from okay.
Butch (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000246/): What now?
Marsellus (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000609/): What now? Let me tell you what now. I'ma call a coupla hard, pipe-hittin' niggers, who'll go to work on the homes here with a pair of pliers and a blow torch. You hear me talkin', hillbilly boy? I ain't through with you by a damn sight. I'ma get medieval on your ass.
Butch (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000246/): I meant what now between me and you?
Marsellus (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000609/): Oh, that what now. I tell you what now between me and you. There is no me and you. Not no more.

[manker]

I was thinking it was some black dewd, but I couldn't get past Jules.

Thanks, guys :happy:

[Biggles]

:o

Your first post sans smilies since ... forever ... means that you're pretty fucking far from okay*.
what film was that from, some tarantino film maybe?

The solution is to get the shed back to being a shed. The question is how* :smilie4:


without you getting into loads of trouble. no one wants that. no one :no:
We need answers and we need them now.

:emo:

I could by a proper wendy house, and use that as a shed :sly:

Get one with the coloured shutters for the windows and the cute log cabin style chimney - that will really show them :shifty:

[Barbarossa]

A chimney would be perfect for storing the long-handled rake :)

[The Flying Cow]

Legalizing drugs is a good idea, but not without the careful dissemination of truthful and helpful information about them on the side.

I remember picking up books about magic mushrooms and cannabis when I was 12 that were just hopeless in their completely useless descriptions.

So useless, in fact, that to satiate my totally unsatisfied curiosity I had to experiment with them myself.

In Portugal everything is currently legal since 1999 in small personal consumption doses.

[iLOVENZB]

http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts.html

How the Church or Scientology exists to this day is beyond me. Their motives and logic baffle me. Even if you are convinced of the propaganda they spill you about Weed and LSD you con't accept their bullshit about alcohol: http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/alcohol.html

[mjmacky]

How the Church or Scientology exists to this day is beyond me. Their motives and logic baffle me. Even if you are convinced of the propaganda they spill you about Weed and LSD you con't accept their bullshit about alcohol: http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/alcohol.html

At least link to a crazy page, I know they're all nuts but that first page about alcohol doesn't have anything that's not common knowledge.

[iLOVENZB]

Fuck it, I'm moving to Spain: http://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/nations/spain/2011/12/12/visualizza_new.html_12797106.html?

[Alien5]

The costa del crime.