The VG Resource

If I were to do a drug, it'd just be nice ol' ciggarettes, but I dont want cancer and it'd be much to expensive a habit.

(01-29-2010, 10:48 PM)Woppet Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-29-2010, 03:02 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-29-2010, 02:17 PM)Xander Crews Wrote: [ -> ]i don't think i'd EVER try salvia, it's hard shit. i prefer to stay away from all the hard shit. hell, i'll only smoke pot like twice a year if that. not sure why alcohol is preferable to me though since alcohol is probably worse than pot :l

salvia isn't hard
at all

it's essentially a really strong weed high, but it only lasts for like 5 to 10 minutes at the most.

there are basically zero side effects, and you're back to being completely normal withing an hour.

You are not a clever man.
No matter how strong and how much weed you smoke, you wont trip.

that's why I restated it in a later post
weak salvia is essentially strong weed
on weak salvia, you don't trip
it's more of you get really relaxed and happy and sort of paranoid
like weed

on stronger salvia though, you're correct

lock this thread

You know, I genuinely don't get why people get up in arms about what other people choose to do to their bodies


I mean
people bitch out smokers because OH EM GEE IT WILL GIVE YOU THE CANCER
it's not as if anyone smoking doesn't know of that risk
it's not like telling them will make them go "Oh shit seriously? I thought it would give me EYE LASERS! I'd better stop now that you have educated me!"

It is patronising and interfering and generally shitty.

I agree with you and throw in the point that the government should legalize all drugs because they have no right to tell us what we can and can't do to our own bodies.
(serious post, though it sounds a bit more uneducated that I would have liked, but whatever)

You actually kind of have a point.
Even if it's completely hypocritical after making sarky comments about lung cancer!

but thats it, that isn't where the issues primarily lie; the issues lie in the cigarette companies and in the effect that smoking has on other people (also the whole "addiction" factor which is kind of relevant to the previously made "cigarette companies" point)

a "personal right" instantly loses any of its merit the moment that it infringes upon anothers right (to a reasonable degree, obviously)

Uhhhh
secondary smoking statistics are overexaggerated to push an agenda. Most of the "case studies" where people have died from lung cancer when they haven't smoked have been people working long shifts in unventilated places where people smoke. Over a course of years.

What exactly is the "issue" with the companies? We're pretty far out of the 50s where marketing was basically "Hey you will be so awesome if you smoke also they are totally good for you, seriously"

Maybe this is a regional thing, but throughout the EU, 50% of the packaging is health warnings. As in, literally 50% by law is required to have a sticker explaining possible health implications of smoking. It's different every time but it includes pointing out that they're addictive so I'm not sure I see the problem there. If people knowingly take something that is addictive then, while I've got sympathy for them if/when they get addicted, it's not like they weren't warned! If people are willfully obstinate and try and convince themselves that it's not addictive, then more fool them.

The only time I'm particularly anal about smoking is when it's around kids, if you're indoors. I'm a bit iffy about smoking around kids at all but if you're actually inflicting secondary smoke on them you are a dick.

Quote:secondary smoking statistics are overexaggerated to push an agenda. Most of the "case studies" where people have died from lung cancer when they haven't smoked have been people working long shifts in unventilated places where people smoke. Over a course of years.

lol
yeah. okay!!

Quote:Maybe this is a regional thing, but throughout the EU

seems to be that way, because more often than not you will at best have a singular, kind of small warning in a bottom corner that mentions it has carcinogens and may cause birth defects and thats about it.

that is also of course ignoring the morality of even making the product - a product which is known to cause cancer and have serious health-related repercussions - addictive in the first place/doing very little to try and correct these issues.

by all means the tobacco industry practically embodies the inherent "greed is good"/"money over people" mindset that capitalism promotes

Like it or not, capitalism is the river in which we all sink or swim.

CAN'T REMEMBER WHO SAID TAHT LOL SERIOUS POSTS IN SPAMHAUL.


I don't really think smoking is much more dangerous than drinking. Maybe I'm being too much of a leftist hippy but I genuinely think with any risk, people should be allowed to make their own decisions.

But maybe I just watched Demolition Man too much during my formative years.

everything causes cancer nowadays anyways so

(01-31-2010, 03:40 PM)Sebastian Wrote: [ -> ]everything causes cancer nowadays anyways so

MORGAN BE CAREFUL this statement is cancerous

welp now that i have finger cancer

if we legalize all drugs might as well legalize all weapons while you're at it.

you know, because people really understand the risk behind these two.

amster is age of consent but is dating someone 3 years older

if they have sex its illegal

don't have sex with tyvon amster

you'll get pregnant and then you'll want an abortion

then god will hate you