Pot

[claws]

[Svengoolie 3]

Sure,  as long as big pharma makes a fortune on them.

[El Misfit]

Getting back on track I sometimes use hash to help me relax before going to sleep. It sometimes work.

[Rev. Powell]

Psst, look up "push-pull experiment'. It's the basis of everything from good-cop/bad-cop to double team selling on a car lot.

Advice: dislike leaves you vulnerable. Manipulating a couple of you based on you being out to get me is as easy as tripping someone who is shoving into you.

Oh yeah- that's called 'TROLLING."

It does sound like trolling. Something I do not understand the appeal of. But perhaps we should let this rest now.

[316zombie]

i find judging people to be a sickness. and i find inflicting your own moral code on others to be a flaw. i also find self-righteousness to be a dooming fault.
  tell me, ER, you have used the word"her" in your last post, are you projecting your own personal experience? if so, it's fine for you to look at YOURSELF any way you choose. carry on with THAT.
  in MY  experience, the vast majority or people who partake of alcohol or pot do NOT drive drunk, nor do they get overly intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated. they do it as a way to relax WITHOUT truly harmful drugs like anti depressants can be to some people's systems. just watch the commercials to see the harmful side effects. i don't have an issue with anyone who takes them to help themselves as long as they know what COULD happen to them if they end up with bad side effects, and know what to do if that happens.
  anti depressants help people. so does pot. alcohol is certainly more dangerous than either, physically, but partaking of any of them in moderation is NOT a flaw. should i consider YOU flawed for using your own body's endorphins to" get high"? because you DO, you know, when you go running, etc.. i don't judge you, don't judge me, or anyone else, please. EXCEPT those few who DO cause harm to others while under the influence. unfortunately a cell phone in hand isn't considered a drug, but they sure as hell cause vehicular death, don't they.

But doesn't society depend on a consistent code of conduct? And by implementing said code of conduct doesn't society implicitly judge other forms of conduct, & those who practice them as bad? I do agree that self-righteousness is a fault; if you always see yourself as righteous you will never realize your own faults, & may eventually cause yourself harm.

ER's pedo example was poor; a better example might be speed limits. Is there a deadly crash everytime the speed limit's broken? No, but breaking the speed limit does increase one's risk of crashing, if only slightly. Should we lower speed limits to decrease the chances of crashing further, or should we raise them? Does the increased convience outweigh the increased risk?

Not sure the endorphins/illegal drugs comparison is applicable, unless the naturally-occurring endorphins you get through exercise have some sort of mind-altering effect which makes you less aware of your surroundings. I agree that most antidepressants sound dangerous. Most states are banning cell phone use in cars; using a cell phone while driving is as bad as driving drunk.

  if society truly DID depend on a code of conduct, who gets to set the standards, though? no offense, but your speeding example isn't a great one either, simply because it's a LAW, not a code of conduct. and yes, i know there are laws against illegal drugs, but those laws ARE changing all over the world. and some of the most dangerous..well, i'll use sven's example, opioids.( i know, i'm not spelling it right) they are legal, and they kill so many people. including people who AREN'T taking them, because people DO drive while under their influence.
   as for endorphins having a mind altering affect, YES, they do. and they ARE addictive. i know so many people who have replaced the addiction they" beat" with working out, in some cases to a dangerous point where they end up injuring themselves. and neglecting the rest of their lives to fill that need for the" high" they get from endorphins by spending hours a day working out. my niece is now seeing the light that SHE has an addiction to working out, and it is affecting her relationships with her children. that is NOT a good thing, i think you'll agree with me on that. 

[316zombie]

...
I used the female pronoun because he or she were the only applicable choices in the language for the singular. (They/their is plural and grammatically incorrect.)...

ER is correct, though I often use the plural for the sake of ease and inclusiveness. 

  oh, i don't disagree with the grammar part, i simply wanted to know if she was projecting her own experience, as i said. grammar expert is NOT one of my titles, lol!

[316zombie]

Oh, my God, please. I can't do this anymore. No one saw through this? I could have kept this topic up a while longer, I had an even bigger post about drugs ready, I was going to mention the deterioration of Jim Carrey and bring up the urban legend about Martin Scorsesi's nose and I had it about 1,500 words. It's been funny, it's been fun, but be free, really, I release you. Yes, I get why you smoke pot, yes, decriminalizing beats locking users up, but honestly, gang, for real? Not one of you thought I was kidding even a little? Comparing getting high to molesting children? Ohhhhhmigawd, what a day. You are all so serious. Really, exploiting pre-existing antipathy, it's like shooting fish in Cassius Clay's teacup. Jig's up, peace out, we return to regularly scheduled programming.  Thanks for the amusement, take a bow! I couldn't have done it without a few of you. TTYL

 i will say thank you for not putting me in a position to have to reveal info from your PM. and that's the last thank you you'll ever see from me.
tell me, just who the F**K do you think you are, anyway? and who do you think WE are? because i'll tell you right now, we are NOT your little white mice. we are NOT a social experiment for you. we are people who are friends for many years, and i've had just about enough of you being such a condescending little robot who thinks WE are your toys. i stayed away from this part of the board off and on for years just to avoid fighting with YOU, because i didn't want to hurt MY FRIENDS here by doing so. you are NOBODY'S friend here, if you think it's okay to experiment on us. and after having read SO many of your posts, let me diagnose YOU. you are addicted to being a martyr. you are a control freak  who disguises that by" helping" people, when in reality, you are ENABLING them, JUST so you can continue to control them. and pat yourself on the back while you do it. you are also THE most narcissistic person i know, and considering my brother, that is saying something. you use your insecurities to get attention when you don't have someone who "needs" you at the moment. i've never believed you were telling the truth about being insecure, and i never will. sp put that in your pipe and have a toke, evvie.

[316zombie]

Psst, look up "push-pull experiment'. It's the basis of everything from good-cop/bad-cop to double team selling on a car lot.

Advice: dislike leaves you vulnerable. Manipulating a couple of you based on you being out to get me is as easy as tripping someone who is shoving into you.

Oh yeah- that's called 'TROLLING."

  no rev, we should NOT do that. ER is USING people on this board as an experiment. that is not cool, and NOT what friends do. she is VERY lucky i'm not a mod here, because i'd ban her so fast her head would spin after this crap. using people is not and will never be cool in my world. and that is all any of us are to her, just an experiment. she said it herself.

It does sound like trolling. Something I do not understand the appeal of. But perhaps we should let this rest now.

[316zombie]

i screwed up that quote, and i have no idea how to fix it. i'm sure you'll all get my point, though.

[Pacman000]

i find judging people to be a sickness. and i find inflicting your own moral code on others to be a flaw. i also find self-righteousness to be a dooming fault.
  tell me, ER, you have used the word"her" in your last post, are you projecting your own personal experience? if so, it's fine for you to look at YOURSELF any way you choose. carry on with THAT.
  in MY  experience, the vast majority or people who partake of alcohol or pot do NOT drive drunk, nor do they get overly intoxicated to the point of being incapacitated. they do it as a way to relax WITHOUT truly harmful drugs like anti depressants can be to some people's systems. just watch the commercials to see the harmful side effects. i don't have an issue with anyone who takes them to help themselves as long as they know what COULD happen to them if they end up with bad side effects, and know what to do if that happens.
  anti depressants help people. so does pot. alcohol is certainly more dangerous than either, physically, but partaking of any of them in moderation is NOT a flaw. should i consider YOU flawed for using your own body's endorphins to" get high"? because you DO, you know, when you go running, etc.. i don't judge you, don't judge me, or anyone else, please. EXCEPT those few who DO cause harm to others while under the influence. unfortunately a cell phone in hand isn't considered a drug, but they sure as hell cause vehicular death, don't they.

But doesn't society depend on a consistent code of conduct? And by implementing said code of conduct doesn't society implicitly judge other forms of conduct, & those who practice them as bad? I do agree that self-righteousness is a fault; if you always see yourself as righteous you will never realize your own faults, & may eventually cause yourself harm.

ER's pedo example was poor; a better example might be speed limits. Is there a deadly crash everytime the speed limit's broken? No, but breaking the speed limit does increase one's risk of crashing, if only slightly. Should we lower speed limits to decrease the chances of crashing further, or should we raise them? Does the increased convience outweigh the increased risk?

Not sure the endorphins/illegal drugs comparison is applicable, unless the naturally-occurring endorphins you get through exercise have some sort of mind-altering effect which makes you less aware of your surroundings. I agree that most antidepressants sound dangerous. Most states are banning cell phone use in cars; using a cell phone while driving is as bad as driving drunk.

  if society truly DID depend on a code of conduct, who gets to set the standards, though? no offense, but your speeding example isn't a great one either, simply because it's a LAW, not a code of conduct. and yes, i know there are laws against illegal drugs, but those laws ARE changing all over the world. and some of the most dangerous..well, i'll use sven's example, opioids.( i know, i'm not spelling it right) they are legal, and they kill so many people. including people who AREN'T taking them, because people DO drive while under their influence.
   as for endorphins having a mind altering affect, YES, they do. and they ARE addictive. i know so many people who have replaced the addiction they" beat" with working out, in some cases to a dangerous point where they end up injuring themselves. and neglecting the rest of their lives to fill that need for the" high" they get from endorphins by spending hours a day working out. my niece is now seeing the light that SHE has an addiction to working out, and it is affecting her relationships with her children. that is NOT a good thing, i think you'll agree with me on that. 

Aren't laws just codified extensions of a society's code of conduct? As for who gets to set the standards, the people in society do, using the best available method. Overthrowing the old monarch for a new one, electing new representatives, directly voting on new laws, etc. That's why such discussions are important, including, yes, judgments that certain conduct is generally harmful to, or potentially harmful to, enough members in society for said conduct to be restricted, or banned outright. That's where the speeding example came in; it's an easy to understand example which doesn't play off emotions or require definitions of who gets hurt.

Even speed laws change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

I agree that an addiction to exercise can harm one's family, as can any addiction. I'm not sure it can harm other people outside one's family, nor do I know if it's common enough to regulate.

I agree that morphine & similar drugs are addictive, mind altering, & dangerous if abused. And they have been. Is making another mind altering substance legal a good idea, even if it is less dangerous? In my opinion no, tho I may make an exception for medical reasons. (Not sure about that yet.)

I'm still here. I can't believe it. The word troll gets used a lot. With the pot topic, nah, just proving a point that some people here will always try to attack me. As a rule I'm serious here.

Well you admitted you were posting primarily to get a response from people, & that getting said response was a form of entertainment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses[2] and normalizing tangential discussion,[3] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

You've never been off topic or started a quarrel per se (that I've seen), but the definition contains the word OR, not AND.  I do like you, but you used to not be this way. Post from the heart, not to get another's goat. Discord is stressful, not hilarious. To offend is not a sin, to do so deliberately to cause others grief is.