Humodour

Same, 'cept some are further away than that. It's also good for chatting up ladies, if you're in a hurry when you meet them and don't have the time to build the necessary comfort etc. for getting the digits ("You got facebook? We'll talk!".) I've dated two girls this way. It resolves the issue of being so drunk you forget most about them except maybe their first name. It also provides photos to determine whether or not you had beer goggles on.

Julia Gillard ups the xenophobic rhetoric towards refugees, speaks out against equal marriage rights for gays, adopts the Rudd plan to pretend climate change doesn't exist for another few years, and reiterates her commitment to Internet censorship. What a lady. What a ****ing horrible lady! Nothing but a Rudd clone controlled by Labour Right factional leaders. Bleh.

Given half of my friends are trolls and constantly marrying and divorcing each other and listing each-other as mothers and brothers, I think this base is covered.

Look, anybody who takes it in this capacity - when they're meant to be performing at school or work, or so often that they start to neglect important hygiene - is abusing it (like they would be if it were alcohol instead). No two ways about it. I'd also argue that those who are able to take it daily and function normally and work and shower every day (e.g. heathen in his youth) are also abusing it. Functional abusers. They're clearly not a problem to society, but I wouldn't like to see the gene regulation changes happening in the brain (although I've read a very interesting study indicating the brain rewires itself to cope with long-term daily use such that there's little cognitive deficit compared to a non-smoker at baseline). But these things do not result from occasional use (e.g. on the weekend with some mates) - that's just a myth fools like gromnir take great pleasure in pushing. And all the stats I've seen about marijuana indicate the vast majority (and it is a majority) of those who use it do so intermittently. Here's the first piece of data I could find: http://www.nida.nih.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html So close to 50% of all 12th graders have tried it in their life time in America (which means overall lifetime use rates in America are well above 50% - probably more like 70% or 80%), yet only about 5% of them used it daily. It's something for the government to monitor closely perhaps and combat with education campaigns if necessary (which do a heck of a lot more to reduce drug use than criminalisation of the citizenry).

I love this post for multiple reasons: it perpetuates myths about marijuana, it does so whilst highlighting gromnir's ignorance of the topic at hand, and it's a classic example of gromnir using arrogance to sate his inferiority complex. And besides, where else am I going to find a post claiming that I'm some kind of hectic stoner? Oh gromnir you rascal!

Interestingly, I read from a reasonably reliable source that Prop 19 means: - Personal growing and use is legal - Commercial growing is illegal without a government licence - The government doesn't have to give out any licences. - The government can (and will) tax commercial licences. So any commercial, non-black market sale will be taxed and government regulated. Given cost reductions of 80% predicted (from like $300 to $40 for an ounce) I find it hard to see how the black market could compete UNLESS the government intentionally restricted supply. Given the opportunity to eleminate the black market in weed, I can't see why the government would restrict demand much. So I guess my point is that Prop 19 legalises non-commercial growing and recreational use, as well as commercial growing and selling - but the commercial side is kind of also a seperate issue as the government could simply elect not to grant licences.

Ds2 combat and plot were superior to DS1. The only thing DS1 did better was beautiful landscapes. So yeah, I fail to see your point. If you're the click and watch type of guy, DS3 is not for you (nor is Baldur's Gate for that matter!), it's that simple (don't take my word for it, read the reviews). Obsidian is not going to change this - it's quite deliberate because it's a big market (Diablo clones/action RPGs).

lol Gorgon. I really despise their recent move to remove freedom of what you enter in interest/hobby/music fields, requiring you to subscribe to one of their existence tracked-for-ease-of-advertising groups instead. Because of this I decided to remove all such hobby/music/group information from my profiles. If they want to **** with me, I'll **** with them. It doesn't stop them from mining and selling the data I post in the form of updates or comments, though. And the problem is, I DO use Facebook for legitimate real-life purposes. A lot. It's how I manage to keep friendships with my mates who are 400km away (over half of them) and organise visits and parties so easily.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1...ing-advertisers

I'll certainly be adding California to my list of places to travel!

That has nothing to do with insight, it's just a fact. A bunch of dudes making some ZRPG? Fine, but I don't waste my time with indie products. I want to have real production values, from a 50+ team at least. Braid Osmos Plants vs Zombies Torchlight Defence Grid Audiosurf Machinarium Trine World of Goo DEFCON Darwinia Aquaria Gish Zeno Clash Honestly mate mate, I can't say I envy all the fun you're missing out on.

You may be coping, but I still say daily use is not recommend. It should be a weekend sort of thing as a rule of thumb just IMHO. It's not like the prime stuff is exactly cheap either. Yep. I value my lungs too much to smoke often. Need to buy a vapouriser for exactly this reason. What was the name of that special drug panel member under Brown who got the sack for saying acid and hash were mostly harmless and a waste of time to pursue legally... Yeah, that was a complete disgrace. Jacqui smith is a retard too. A bunch of the scientists got fired, a lot more resigned in disgust.

No annoyance was meant. Perhaps my tone is wrong. I am stoned. But this hints at a deeper question: why should we seek ever-increasing profits? The main argument for increasing population, too, is increasing the economy. To what end? The aim of society should be human happiness, freedom, quality-of-life, and contentedness, not profit and money. This is no anti-market rant, but simply an observation that sometimes there are things that trump consumption and capitalism.

Why? That's sounds a bit too much of an argument for central planning for my liking. People are entitled to relaxation. People are entitled to only work as many hours as they need the money and get stoned the rest. People are even entitled not to work at all, foolish as that is. I'm pretty sure allowing all this is healthier for society than jailing millions of people for nothing more than trying to relax. But anyway, I imagine you've smoked before, so you know that laying around stoned is no worse a use of time than spending the night on the pisser. The other thing to consider is that people who are smoking weed are less likely to do other things (alcohol, cocaine, cigarettes, etc).

What damage does marijuana cause to society, Wals? Economic loss from people forgetting to set their alarms for work because they were too stoned the previous night? I'm sorry, I don't buy the 'societal damage' line. Marijuana is less addictive than alcohol and causes people to lay around. They don't go stealing TVs to get their next hit, and they don't get all worked up and start fights in pubs. I think marijuana is beneficial to society. It leads to creativity, socialness, and relaxation. All good, positive things in a high-gear consumption society. Edit: Yes, that's the only part of your post I took issue with.

Germany.

Simply put, your anecdote does not match reality, IMHO. "Local losers" are losers when they sober and drunk, as well as speeding - keep that in mind. Let's get some details - did they smoke it or inject it or snort it or swallow it? Because injecting and smoking are a lot more addictive and powerful then a pill or snort. Amphetamine isn't a hallucinogen, either. You don't 'trip' (unless you haven't slept for days and/or take waaaaaaaaaay too much) - you get a rush. It augments reality rather than blurring it as the narcotics, depressants and hallucinogens do. Was it methamphetamine (more potent and damaging than non-methylated amphetamine, also known as ice or meth or crystal)? Dextro-amphetamine (obesity, narcolepsy and ADHD medication)? Street speed (dextro and laevo-amphetamine)? Methylendioxy-methamphetamine (Ecstasy/MDMA)? Were they even on amphetamines or was it actually cocaine (a related stimulant)? Compared to alcohol, the long-term health impacts are less for amphetamine, too (alcohol's cancer and disease risk is very high). Alcohol also has a pretty strong addiction potential (both physical and mental). To the point that if an alcoholic immediately goes cold turkey they can die (delirium tremens). Amphetamine also doesn't get metabolised into a carcinogen in your body. Amphetamine is used illicitly to party, but also by scientists, mathematicians (Erdos is a good example), lawyers, truck drivers, and fighter pilots to augment their abilities in their respective fields. I think the issue here is not that amphetamine is harmless (it isn't), but that alcohol is harmful. Perhaps you have an overly rosy view of grog?

Agreed Wals, and the point of this proposition is to end the decades of lies, bull****, and wasted government resources.

That particular proposition may do that but thats just for the commercial stores that will spring up, just like they do for the existing medical marijuana stores. The vast majority will be private sellers/dealers and there would be no way to tax them nor control the quality. That argument is also true for alcohol and tomato. The same reasons it is irrelevant for them, it is irrelevant for weed.

Legalization = production? Of course not. Legalization simply means its not illegal, it doesnt mean the state becomes the producer and supplier. So nobody is filling the state coffers to overflowing with tax money nor controlling the "black market" or quality. The rest I agree with. I don't follow your logic. Legalisation = allowing people to grow and sell it. Allowing people to grow and sell it allows the government to tax it. Allowing the government to tax it means a completely a new revenue stream. And certainly for Proposition 19, the government plans to licence, regulate, and tax it.

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was running for governor, he was questioned on drug use and his own documented marijuana use, he replied: "marijuana is not a drug, it's a leaf".

awww, cut ****

maaaaaaaan... add Dagga and Lotus to your weed (legal, cheap). it's as potent as marijuana, but it's only 1/3 marijuana! yay price savings. ps: HOTTT!!

I'd rather toke than drink any day, that's for sure. Alcohol has a dark side to it, both that night and the next day. I'd like to see a stoned person start a fight or get a hangover.

32 Celsius in Darwin and the most it can manage here is 12 C. Lucky bastards!