Wow

Post #367,710 by crazy 12/11/12 3:58:58 PM 12/12/12 8:01:51 AM Reply	Wow Where the hell was I when that was going on? Hey MM, I figured out the core issue (besides the dead best buds and all). You have bought into "Reefer Madness" (you'll love that flick, go watch it) perspective, where once smoked is eternally insane. We KNOW now (we did not then) that THC triggers prolactin in the brain and makes guys get mini-post orgasm relaxation, and it makes women horny (reefer madness got that right!!!) and possessive. We KNOW this now. We can explain the various pot head stereotypical behaviors. And we know how block them if we want to, ie: gotta exercise to drive dopamine up (what was that bullshit back then about it pushing dopamine. where'd you pull that from? You wipe that region recently?). And it EXPLAINS why some people can think ok in a short while and others can't. Talking to the guys here: When you orgasm, you get pretty stupid for a bit. That is the result of the prolactin that just got dumped in your bloodstream. YAY prolactin. You can drift away and go to sleep, or you can get hungry, force yourself up, and go to the fridge. That was dopamine pushing you. As dopamine rises (move faster), prolactin goes down. 10 minutes later you can be pretty clear headed after an orgasm, right? The prolactin is pretty much GONE at that point. You want to know how you can be SURE the prolactin has dropped? You can get another erection. Prolactin is responsible for the refractory period, ie: the amount of time after orgasm a guy cannot have another erection. Let's move back to cannabis, and if you make me track down and scan the medical journal articles I will, but you better have a damn fine reason for calling bullshit. THC triggers prolactin (known). Not nearly as high a dose as orgasm, but up there. The amount of prolactin you get from pot is usually FAR less than sex. You can still (usually) get an erection after smoking pot, ie: not enough to cause refractory period effects. ALL THE PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REMAIN THE SAME. You move fast, the prolactin goes down. And god forbid, you might actually be able to fool a real person at that point. Becuase your capabilities ARE returned. The prolactin has dropped. But the full body pain killing still works along with the full body anti-inflammatory properties. So, you scared of a little prolactin? Why? It might make you nicer? It might give you a bit of feminine viewpoint? Uhoh, might be a plot to turn us all gay! Don't forget the passionflower extract, it will block the feminizing (really, pot grow tits in guys) aspect and you'll remain the macho guy you are. See, it does have downsides. But as for driving? 1st 10 minutes, nope, won't try to judge, I will only assume I can't. Then won't for a couple of hours. Depends on the pot. Some is weak with very little mental effect and I'd need to smoke continuously to maintain a mediocre high. But it still works for pain, and I only use it every 4-8 hours or so. But then we have the social weed, and that stuff is 2 hits DO NOT DRIVE. Don't do it. For about 30 min the high will increase, and you can't judge where it will go since everyone is unique in that aspect. But then, you are done, doesn't get any higher. If the need arises, 10 minutes of exercise will drive up the dopamine. That drives down the prolactin (they are in a balance). Poof, vast majorityof mental state is back to the baseline crazy.I still am affected, absolutely. I can judge by what "feels fast". No music or any unnecessary distractions though. Setup GPS beforehand. No eating. Focus is important, and mind wandering is dangerous. The vehicle is a several thousand pound bullet. Take this shit very seriously. Basically, is 55 MPH fast? Holy shit, I've smoked way too much, pull the fuck over. Happened once. I should not have driven far enough to get on the entrance. But I did. Dumb. Not again. Is 65 fast? Ehh, yeah, but is it scary feeling? Well, dumb shit, drive at 55 no matter what the speed limit is (speed limit could be 65) The key is to be able to judge your reaction time and adjust, just like you do in the rain. And since it is nothing like driving drunk (really man, NOTHING), it is more like driving after just getting a blowjob, it doesn't trigger speeding and overcorrection. It triggers people driving too slow and annoying you. BTW: This is the same process you use (on the doctor's direction) when you are any prescribed medication. I've been on major painkillers for many years and made these exact decisions, and they are legally justifiable and directed. Driving under the influence of THC is WAY safer than driving under the influence of percocet, and for some people, those type of meds are lifelong, and they get to choose when they drive as long as they don't hit anyone or swerve around and get caught. And in those cases, caught isn't that bad. They aren't forced into rehab because they had an accident while under the influence of these narcotics. They are prescribed more and told to be more careful. I haven't touched a "real" narcotic in years, and am very happy for it. And as far as it changing people's lives forever, yes it does. Just like sex. Some people can handle it, some people can't. Sorry. Referring to the long term fat storage here that you loved to rant about back then. If microscopic amount of THC is released during fat burn (or just fat cell life cycle) (allowing for your insanity here, assuming it has an effect), the effect is the same as a bit of continuous prolactin release. This happens to guys when they fall in love and are having frequent sex. It alters their personality. It makes them more socialized. Less testosterone, more estriol. Happens more when they become fathers. It makes them more acceptable to the general group. The derogatory term is pussywhipped. It's real, it has a biological bases, it is not a choice if you don't have the passion flower extract handy. On the other hand, if you try to block it, well, you marraige may suffer and you may be a selfish prick to you wife and kids, which is what it is trying to cut out. Most women prefer this personality type for long term relationship. We evolved for it. But they love a fling with the alpha for that occasional genetic refresh. There are always guys who have a gut reaction against other guys with those types of personalities. Those are the homophobics. Because the homophobes do pick up on that feminine personality edge, and they don't like it. I was (and am now) somewhat feminine. I certainly have a languid posture. I can bitch pretty damn well. They thought I was gay. I stole their girlfriends. The macho jock homophobes call the dopers fags. They have a hint of science to back them on it, but obviously I think they go a bit far in their personal overreaction. So, long term release of unmeasurable amount of THC causing a trivial amount of prolactin to be present (as compared to becoming a father and living that life of ever increasing prolactin) would equate to a trivial amount of additional socialization behavior. Jeez, tough when people are easier to get along with, EXCEPT WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO THROW US IN JAIL. Edited by crazy Dec. 11, 2012, 04:10:07 PM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 11, 2012, 04:19:32 PM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 11, 2012, 04:22:43 PM EST Wow Where the hell was I when that was going on? Hey MM, I figured out the core issue (besides the dead best buds and all). You have bought into "Reefer Madness" (you'll love that flick, go watch it) perspective, where once smoked is eternally insane. We KNOW now (we did not then) that THC triggers prolactin in the brain and makes guys get mini-post orgasm relaxation, and it makes women horny (reefer madness got that right!!!) and possessive. We KNOW this now. We can explain the various pot head stereotypical behaviors. And we know how block them if we want to, ie: gotta exercise to drive dopamine up (what was that bullshit back then about it pushing dopamine. where'd you pull that from? You wipe that region recently?). And it EXPLAINS why some people can think ok in a short while and others can't. Talking to the guys here: When you orgasm, you get pretty stupid for a bit. That is the result of the prolactin that just got dumped in your bloodstream. YAY prolactin. You can drift away and go to sleep, or you can get hungry, force yourself up, and go to the fridge. That was dopamine pushing you. As dopamine rises (move faster), prolactin goes down. 10 minutes later you can be pretty clear headed after an orgasm, right? The prolactin is pretty much GONE at that point. Let's move back to cannabis, and if you make me track down and scan the medical journal articles I will, but you better have a damn fine reason for calling bullshit. THC triggers prolactin (known). Not nearly as high a dose as orgasm, but up there. ALL THE SAME PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REMAIN THE SAME. You move fast, the prolactin goes down. And god forbid, you might actually be able to fool a real person at that point. Becuase your capabilities ARE returned. The prolactin has dropped. But the full body pain killing still works along with the full body anti-inflammatory properties. So, you scared of a little prolactin? Why? It might make you nicer? It might give you a bit of feminine viewpoint? Uhoh, might be a plot to turn us all gay! Don't forget the passionflower extract, it will block the feminizing (really, pot grow tits in guys) aspect and you'll remain the macho guy you are. See, it does have downsides. But as for driving? 1st 10 minutes, nope, won't try to judge, I will only assume I can't. Then won't for a couple of hours. Depends on the pot. Some is weak with very little mental effect and I'd need to smoke continuously to maintain a mediocre high. But it still works for pain, and I only use it every 4-8 hours or so. But then we have the social weed, and that stuff is 2 hits DO NOT DRIVE. Don't do it. For about 30 min the high will increase, and you can't judge where it will go since everyone is unique in that aspect. But then, you are done, doesn't get any higher. If the need arises, 10 minutes of exercise will drive up the dopamine. That drives down the prolactin (they are in a balance). Poof, vast majorityof mental state is back to the baseline crazy.I still am affected, absolutely. I can judge by what "feels fast". No music or any unnecessary distractions though. Setup GPS beforehand. No eating. Focus is important, and mind wandering is dangerous. The vehicle is a several thousand pound bullet. Take this shit very seriously. Basically, is 55 MPH fast? Holy shit, I've smoked way too much, pull the fuck over. Happened once. I should not have driven far enough to get on the entrance. But I did. Dumb. Not again. Is 65 fast? Ehh, yeah, but is it scary feeling? Well, dumb shit, drive at 55 no matter what the speed limit is (speed limit could be 65) And since it is nothing like driving drunk (really man, NOTHING), it is more like driving after just getting a blowjob, it doesn't trigger speeding and overcorrection. It triggers people driving too slow and annoying you. And as far as it changing people's lives forever, yes it does. Just like sex. Some people can handle it, some people can't. Sorry. Edited by crazy Dec. 11, 2012, 04:29:04 PM EST Wow Where the hell was I when that was going on? Hey MM, I figured out the core issue (besides the dead best buds and all). You have bought into "Reefer Madness" (you'll love that flick, go watch it) perspective, where once smoked is eternally insane. We KNOW now (we did not then) that THC triggers prolactin in the brain and makes guys get mini-post orgasm relaxation, and it makes women horny (reefer madness got that right!!!) and possessive. We KNOW this now. We can explain the various pot head stereotypical behaviors. And we know how block them if we want to, ie: gotta exercise to drive dopamine up (what was that bullshit back then about it pushing dopamine. where'd you pull that from? You wipe that region recently?). And it EXPLAINS why some people can think ok in a short while and others can't. Talking to the guys here: When you orgasm, you get pretty stupid for a bit. That is the result of the prolactin that just got dumped in your bloodstream. YAY prolactin. You can drift away and go to sleep, or you can get hungry, force yourself up, and go to the fridge. That was dopamine pushing you. As dopamine rises (move faster), prolactin goes down. 10 minutes later you can be pretty clear headed after an orgasm, right? The prolactin is pretty much GONE at that point. Let's move back to cannabis, and if you make me track down and scan the medical journal articles I will, but you better have a damn fine reason for calling bullshit. THC triggers prolactin (known). Not nearly as high a dose as orgasm, but up there. ALL THE SAME PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REMAIN THE SAME. You move fast, the prolactin goes down. And god forbid, you might actually be able to fool a real person at that point. Becuase your capabilities ARE returned. The prolactin has dropped. But the full body pain killing still works along with the full body anti-inflammatory properties. So, you scared of a little prolactin? Why? It might make you nicer? It might give you a bit of feminine viewpoint? Uhoh, might be a plot to turn us all gay! Don't forget the passionflower extract, it will block the feminizing (really, pot grow tits in guys) aspect and you'll remain the macho guy you are. See, it does have downsides. But as for driving? 1st 10 minutes, nope, won't try to judge, I will only assume I can't. Then won't for a couple of hours. Depends on the pot. Some is weak with very little mental effect and I'd need to smoke continuously to maintain a mediocre high. But it still works for pain, and I only use it every 4-8 hours or so. But then we have the social weed, and that stuff is 2 hits DO NOT DRIVE. Don't do it. For about 30 min the high will increase, and you can't judge where it will go since everyone is unique in that aspect. But then, you are done, doesn't get any higher. If the need arises, 10 minutes of exercise will drive up the dopamine. That drives down the prolactin (they are in a balance). Poof, vast majorityof mental state is back to the baseline crazy.I still am affected, absolutely. I can judge by what "feels fast". No music or any unnecessary distractions though. Setup GPS beforehand. No eating. Focus is important, and mind wandering is dangerous. The vehicle is a several thousand pound bullet. Take this shit very seriously. Basically, is 55 MPH fast? Holy shit, I've smoked way too much, pull the fuck over. Happened once. I should not have driven far enough to get on the entrance. But I did. Dumb. Not again. Is 65 fast? Ehh, yeah, but is it scary feeling? Well, dumb shit, drive at 55 no matter what the speed limit is (speed limit could be 65) The key is to be able to judge your reaction time and adjust, just like you do in the rain. And since it is nothing like driving drunk (really man, NOTHING), it is more like driving after just getting a blowjob, it doesn't trigger speeding and overcorrection. It triggers people driving too slow and annoying you. And as far as it changing people's lives forever, yes it does. Just like sex. Some people can handle it, some people can't. Sorry. Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 07:04:51 AM EST Wow Where the hell was I when that was going on? Hey MM, I figured out the core issue (besides the dead best buds and all). You have bought into "Reefer Madness" (you'll love that flick, go watch it) perspective, where once smoked is eternally insane. We KNOW now (we did not then) that THC triggers prolactin in the brain and makes guys get mini-post orgasm relaxation, and it makes women horny (reefer madness got that right!!!) and possessive. We KNOW this now. We can explain the various pot head stereotypical behaviors. And we know how block them if we want to, ie: gotta exercise to drive dopamine up (what was that bullshit back then about it pushing dopamine. where'd you pull that from? You wipe that region recently?). And it EXPLAINS why some people can think ok in a short while and others can't. Talking to the guys here: When you orgasm, you get pretty stupid for a bit. That is the result of the prolactin that just got dumped in your bloodstream. YAY prolactin. You can drift away and go to sleep, or you can get hungry, force yourself up, and go to the fridge. That was dopamine pushing you. As dopamine rises (move faster), prolactin goes down. 10 minutes later you can be pretty clear headed after an orgasm, right? The prolactin is pretty much GONE at that point. Let's move back to cannabis, and if you make me track down and scan the medical journal articles I will, but you better have a damn fine reason for calling bullshit. THC triggers prolactin (known). Not nearly as high a dose as orgasm, but up there. ALL THE SAME PHYSICAL PROPERTIES REMAIN THE SAME. You move fast, the prolactin goes down. And god forbid, you might actually be able to fool a real person at that point. Becuase your capabilities ARE returned. The prolactin has dropped. But the full body pain killing still works along with the full body anti-inflammatory properties. So, you scared of a little prolactin? Why? It might make you nicer? It might give you a bit of feminine viewpoint? Uhoh, might be a plot to turn us all gay! Don't forget the passionflower extract, it will block the feminizing (really, pot grow tits in guys) aspect and you'll remain the macho guy you are. See, it does have downsides. But as for driving? 1st 10 minutes, nope, won't try to judge, I will only assume I can't. Then won't for a couple of hours. Depends on the pot. Some is weak with very little mental effect and I'd need to smoke continuously to maintain a mediocre high. But it still works for pain, and I only use it every 4-8 hours or so. But then we have the social weed, and that stuff is 2 hits DO NOT DRIVE. Don't do it. For about 30 min the high will increase, and you can't judge where it will go since everyone is unique in that aspect. But then, you are done, doesn't get any higher. If the need arises, 10 minutes of exercise will drive up the dopamine. That drives down the prolactin (they are in a balance). Poof, vast majorityof mental state is back to the baseline crazy.I still am affected, absolutely. I can judge by what "feels fast". No music or any unnecessary distractions though. Setup GPS beforehand. No eating. Focus is important, and mind wandering is dangerous. The vehicle is a several thousand pound bullet. Take this shit very seriously. Basically, is 55 MPH fast? Holy shit, I've smoked way too much, pull the fuck over. Happened once. I should not have driven far enough to get on the entrance. But I did. Dumb. Not again. Is 65 fast? Ehh, yeah, but is it scary feeling? Well, dumb shit, drive at 55 no matter what the speed limit is (speed limit could be 65) The key is to be able to judge your reaction time and adjust, just like you do in the rain. And since it is nothing like driving drunk (really man, NOTHING), it is more like driving after just getting a blowjob, it doesn't trigger speeding and overcorrection. It triggers people driving too slow and annoying you. BTW: This is the same process you use (on the doctor's direction) when you are any prescribed medication. I've been on major painkillers for many years and made these exact decisions, and they are legally justifiable and directed. Driving under the influence of THC is WAY safer than driving under the influence of percocet, and for some people, those type of meds are lifelong, and they get to choose when they drive as long as they don't hit anyone or swerve around and get caught. And in those cases, caught isn't that bad. They aren't forced into rehab because they had an accident while under the influence of these narcotics. They are prescribed more and told to be more careful. I haven't touched a "real" narcotic in years, and am very happy for it. And as far as it changing people's lives forever, yes it does. Just like sex. Some people can handle it, some people can't. Sorry. Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 07:25:24 AM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 07:43:52 AM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 08:01:51 AM EST Expand All History \| Collapse All History
Post #367,714 by boxley 12/11/12 6:30:28 PM Reply	dunno about anyone else but after I kick a knot I want to build car motors, clean the garage, an amphetamine like manic stage kicks in for an hour or so. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #367,722 by crazy 12/12/12 6:51:48 AM 12/12/12 8:26:43 AM Reply	You show the female response Nesting behavior is one of them. You display it HARD. And you can expect it to increase as you age. Go get the passionflower extract now, smoking or not, you want it. Really. Do you JUMP up, say, thanks, hon, gotta go to the garage, or do you at least hang with her for a couple of minutes? Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 07:30:11 AM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 08:26:43 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,728 by boxley 12/12/12 8:18:09 AM Reply	not nesting, invigourated Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #367,729 by crazy 12/12/12 8:19:25 AM Reply	Then you are not done. Time for the 2nd pass.
Post #367,730 by boxley 12/12/12 8:20:47 AM Reply	2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #367,731 by crazy 12/12/12 8:29:44 AM Reply	Longer delay, more prolactin Rather have 1 than 5. And never sore. Better living through understanding of chemistry.
Post #367,746 by boxley 12/12/12 10:00:56 AM Reply	nope Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #367,718 by Another Scott 12/12/12 12:25:36 AM Reply	So why not cut out the middleman? If it's the prolactin that's the main cause of the benefits, why not just take a pill (titrated with whatever "passionflower extract" is needed to minimize the development of female secondary sexual characteristics)? Hasn't the argument always been that bare THC or whatever doesn't work as well as the doobie? It seems to me that inhaling smoke, of whatever sort, is a health hazard (no matter what offsetting benefits there may be) - it's not "harmless" as some advocates say. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,721 by crazy 12/12/12 6:50:53 AM Reply	Because THC alone is BAD And for most, it is not the goal. People need CBD as well, and in varying ratios for different effects. The goal can be a an enjoyable sharable experience for a group of people (social lubricant) or the goal could be one of it's variety of medical uses (painkiller (global, narcotic like but no breathing depression), pain killer (local, stop generation of pain chemicals during actual flesh tear), anti-inflammatory, appetite stimulant, muscle relaxant, sleep aid.) Some of the immediate uses, others are long term like anti-cancer. The experience will be determined by the ratio of THC to CBD. The more THC, the "higher" you will get. The more CBD, the "lower" (couch lock, serious anti-pain) you will go. THC alone will cause psychotic breaks in the most stable of people. When mixed with CBD, the mental effects are moderated. There are a few other main chemicals that have an effect, found in trace qty and varying by plant species, but very little true research in them. As far as ALL combustion products being dangerous, you can assume all you want, but studies have shown otherwise. This is an area you will seem to say: but we do't know enough yet. http://www.scienceda.../120110163444.htm Yes, yes we do. A joint a day for 7 years shows no harmful effect. And when they didn't show any (they WANTED to find it), they then said: But we don't know for longer term. Yes they do. But if you REALLY believed that, then there are a bunch of alternative methods. Cooking in brownies, oil extract under the tongue, vaporizer (no flame, extract temperature, NO smoke), etc. I need to understand YOUR goal. Is it limited adult distribution via a chemical extracted (and/or synthesized), controlled by the Dr and drug companies, and still putting people in jail for possession? Or is is legalization like alcohol, while maintaining a wary stance? And if that, is home growing prohibited? Or somewhere in between? Obviously, I want full adult legalization with hard penalties for supplying minors and a real DUI test. Test mental capacity, test reflexes, test memory, test distraction. Test all these for any type of infraction, and ignore the blood quantities since they do not match mental state. I NEVER want the storm trooper to have a reason to break down the door if I'm growing a plant because it competes with a high paying interest. And that is what the world seems to be right now.
Post #367,726 by Another Scott 12/12/12 8:09:20 AM Reply	Read that link again. "it's long been known that marijuana smoke has many irritant chemicals found in tobacco smoke and can cause lung irritation, wheezing and cough immediately after use;" Any smoke contains CO and CO2 in addition to all sorts of particulates. It's not good for you. There may be beneficial drugs in the smoke, but that doesn't make smoking (of anything) harmless. I'll see if I can find a study of what's actually in the smoke... More later. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,727 by crazy 12/12/12 8:14:48 AM Reply	Remember, even if you find it it doesn't matter. Many alternative input methods, that will be determined by your answering what your goals are. So what are your goals? Prescribed or legal?
Post #367,755 by Another Scott 12/12/12 12:51:45 PM Reply	My goals: Rational, sensible policy. I said as much earlier: http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367532 and in olden-days: http://forum.iwethey....iwt?postid=98059 Of course, nothing in life is risk-free. Medical treatments, and even food, has risks. (There are toxins in mustard and beer.) You didn't say "harmless", but other advocates have. https://www.google.c...&client=firefox-a My points in all of this is that: 0) The human body is complicated. We don't really understand it. What seems "harmless" now may easily turn out to be otherwise. I'm suspicious of any categorical statements. (Including that one. ;-) 1) Yes, in general, bad and dangerous behavior should be punished rather than yes/no or 0.07%/0.08% BAC arbitrary limits for substances in the blood (that can get there other ways). But we know that it is human nature that those in power will apply power arbitrarily if they choose to do so. Some objective standards are necessary to protect against arbitrary incarceration. What's the balance? 2) The conventional wisdom is that too many people are in prison for small amounts of pot. Is that true? I dunno. Maybe they pleaded guilty to that, as it was easy to prove, rather than going to trial and risking conviction for something more serious (but more difficult to prove). I dunno. In either case, something seems to be very wrong with the laws and how they are applied. Pot is not the same as heroin and should not be treated as such. Laws against "possession with intent to distribute" should not be used as an easy cudgel to throw people in jail if they should reasonably be charged with something more serious. People should not have their chance at a professional career ruined by experimentation while they are young (as long as they do not hurt others). 3) There are "true believers" on both sides who have a strong case, but I'm not convinced they are right. Life is full of shades of gray. MM has posted links about studies of what's in the smoke (thanks Mike!). We've all seen horror stories about people who get caught up in overboard drug-prosecutions. We know the history of the Opium Wars and earlier in China. We know the horrors of what's going on now in Mexico, Columbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. There has to be a better way. 4) In the US, decriminalization may be the way to go. Full legalization for adults in the US may be the way to go. I dunno. There are lots of details that need to be worked out either way. Purity and potency standards (Y/N)? Government stores (Y/N)? Wouldn't that encourage increased consumption to increase revenue (rather like lotteries)? Commercial farms (Y/N)? Exclusivity (Y/N)? Home grown (Y/N)? Tax a lot (encourage tax avoidance) or a little (make it easier to get physically or psychologically addicted)? Public consumption (Y/N)? "Coffee shop" consumption (Y/N)? "Private club" consumption (Y/N)? Car interlocks for stoners who cause accidents (Y/N)? Advertizing allowed (Y/N)? Offseting warnings about the dangers (Y/N)? Etc., etc. Simply throwing up our hands and letting "the magic of the marketplace" sort it all out is a recipe for disaster. Clearer now? HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,759 by drook 12/12/12 1:15:53 PM Reply	Seems the right time for this one http://steve-yegge.b...ed-marijuana.html Long, but worth it. See the second set of bullet points in particular. -- Drew
Post #367,764 by Another Scott 12/12/12 2:13:52 PM Reply	Excellent. Thanks. One of my favorite songs by JT: http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=bRrWdvtLqro (9:34) - SFW but use headphones. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,767 by folkert 12/12/12 3:39:30 PM Reply	Seen that one before... Its pretty damn poignant! -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,736 by crazy 12/12/12 8:42:43 AM Reply	Phhh Hack cough. Got it. Smoking my cigarette right now. Personal choice. Click. Bubble bubble filter filter draw AHHH. No cough. You better have a damn fine level of damage documented before you use some generic X is bad and we should put people in jail for it. I walk by the BBQ place and get a whiff of charcoal. Do we put them in jail?
Post #367,738 by mmoffitt 12/12/12 8:49:46 AM Reply	Here's a couple. Dec. 14, 2007 -- New research from Canada shows that some toxins may be more abundant in marijuana cigarettes than tobacco cigarettes. The researchers burned 30 marijuana cigarettes and 30 tobacco cigarettes on a machine in their lab, measuring levels of chemicals in the smoke. Ammonia levels were up to 20 times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. Levels of hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen-related chemicals were three to five times higher in marijuana smoke than in tobacco smoke. The nitrogen-based fertilizer used on the marijuana plants -- which all came from the same batch of Canadian pot plants -- may have affected the results. The temperatures used to burn the cigarettes may also have been a factor. Marijuana smoke and tobacco smoke shared many of the same chemicals. But the two types of smoke weren't identical. For instance, marijuana doesn't contain nicotine. And tobacco doesn't contain cannabinoids, which include THC, marijuana's active ingredient Tobacco has long been linked to cancer and other health problems. Marijuana smoke hasn't been tied to cancer in the past, note the researchers, who included David Moir, PhD, of the Safe Environments Programme in Kitchener, Ontario. http://www.webmd.com...n-marijuana-smoke FRIDAY, June 19 (HealthDay News) -- The smoke from cannabis, the plant from which marijuana is derived, contains compounds that can damage DNA and increase the risk of cancer just like tobacco smoke, says a new study from the United Kingdom. In laboratory tests, Rajinder Singh from the University of Leicester and colleagues found certain carcinogens in cannabis smoke in amounts 50 percent greater than those found in tobacco smoke. They noted that light cannabis use could possibly prove to be even more damaging because cannabis smokers usually inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers. "The smoking of three to four cannabis cigarettes a day is associated with the same degree of damage to bronchial mucus membranes as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day," the researchers noted in a news release from the university. http://abcnews.go.co...id=7885120&page=1 Keep on smokin', crazy.
Post #367,741 by crazy 12/12/12 8:57:16 AM Reply	2007 Far more recent REAL info. Keep reading. But thanks, you may be exposed to a bit of info.
Post #367,742 by crazy 12/12/12 9:03:47 AM Reply	#2: Research CBD Actually, it reduces and/or cures (yeah, laugh, cures, go read a bit before responding, cancer). https://www.google.c...=cbd+cures+cancer No real life human studies (and they have many years of tracking) proved out any of the cancer predictions. And then they found out CBD cures it. And in this case, possibly inhibits the start of it. Keep reading though. Thanks for at least taking the interest.
Post #367,750 by folkert 12/12/12 10:21:27 AM Reply	Can't have anyone curing cancer now... Curing Cancer would drop the bottom out of pharma that produces massive amounts of really expensive drugs. You really think a grown plants is going to be able to be "allowed"... never. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,824 by Another Scott 12/13/12 2:41:40 PM Reply	Hmm... http://www.cancer.go...bis/patient/page1 Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,846 by crazy 12/13/12 6:00:41 PM 12/13/12 6:03:17 PM Reply	Puhleeze Go to a study and try to disprove it, don't point to a government / industry mouthpiece. You might as well tell Gryg to trust the AMA on saturated fat issues. Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:03:17 PM EST Expand All History
Post #367,848 by Another Scott 12/13/12 6:11:27 PM Reply	Ad hominem.
Post #367,863 by crazy 12/13/12 9:06:51 PM Reply	Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and I will. This is the cancer subthread, so I assume that, right?
Post #367,869 by Another Scott 12/13/12 9:25:19 PM Reply	Pick your poison. Scroll down and tell me where they're wrong. Here's a direct link to the FAQ - http://cancer.gov/ca...bis/patient/page2 Or, if that's too conversational, click on the Health Professional Version tab and go to town - http://cancer.gov/ca...ealthprofessional Let me know where they're wrong. Hint: "In writing Cancer Information Summaries, PDQ Editorial Boards review current evidence. They do not make recommendations or develop guidelines. Their work is editorially independent of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This summary on Cannabis and cannabinoids does not represent a policy statement of NCI or NIH. The summary statement represents an independent review of the literature; that review is not influenced by NCI or any other federal agency." HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,740 by crazy 12/12/12 8:56:09 AM Reply	Please don't assume my words I didn't say harmless. I said has not been shown to be harmful as compared to any assumed baseline, ie: cigarettes cause X, and this should as well. There are many years of propaganda to fight against. The question, does the benefits (depends on the goal) outweigh the risks (depends on the delivery system), and what is YOUR goal? I could easily argue delivery system on any smoking issue, and legal rights VS medical company lockup as compared to an easily home grown MOSTLY harmless medicine when used as directed, just like 99% of the stuff in any herb garden. How does it compare against home distilling? What is YOUR goal?
Post #367,723 by drook 12/12/12 7:59:29 AM Reply	Better question: Why? For several serious conditions, it already works better than other known medications with fewer side effects. Right now, smoked. If there were a new pill that you could say that about, there would already be commercials on TV for it. Apropos Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy. http://en.wikiquote....iki/H._L._Mencken -- Drew
Post #367,725 by crazy 12/12/12 8:03:27 AM 12/12/12 8:12:57 AM Reply	Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't articulate. And in your statement, limiting to serious conditions means there is a serious set of side effects that should be considered before prescribing it. Rethink. C'mon AS, do some more research. You'll come around. Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 08:12:57 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,744 by Another Scott 12/12/12 9:34:56 AM Reply	Project much? :-p Patience, grasshopper. All will be revealed in due time. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,745 by crazy 12/12/12 9:48:42 AM Reply	Hokay Take your time. I've had years working on this.
Post #367,756 by Another Scott 12/12/12 1:04:45 PM Reply	Just asking the question. See my reply to crazy, at http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=367755 If the psychochemistry is as simple as crazy lays out, then surely there would be a pill that has the benefits, now. It's not simple. Smoke is not good for you, even if it does have beneficial drugs along with it. From 1997: http://nihrecord.od....11_97/story02.htm Dr. Reese Jones, professor at the Langley Porter Institute, University of California, San Francisco, began the science portion with an hour-long lecture on the clinical pharmacology of marijuana. He pointed out a number of issues that complicate the clinical study of smoked marijuana, including the difficulty of designing a blind trial, and the near impossibility of quantifying and standardizing the dosage of a drug that a study participant smokes (and thereby self doses). "It's the nature of smoking that people dose themselves," he said. "That's one of the advantages of it. But it does present a problem in designing the studies. [In order to get reliable data] a patient must smoke the same way each time, which is virtually impossible." Of major concern to many group members was the potential risk to the lungs and other organs that the act of smoking itself presents, an issue that must be balanced against any benefit marijuana may offer. A member of the group of experts, Dr. Paul Palmberg, professor of ophthalmology at the Bascom-Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, reported his success with a glaucoma patient who smoked marijuana as part of a compassionate use agreement with the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970's. He said the patient's symptoms were relieved -- with no apparent ill effects to date, nor intoxication. He also said the beneficial effects lasted only a couple of hours. The patient, a woman, had to smoke about 10 cigarettes per day to maintain the level of relief she was experiencing. In addition, Palmberg mentioned another patient also treated with marijuana cigarettes under an IND whose glaucoma was not relieved by the drug. The large number of major medical advances made in the last decade in treating glaucoma, he said, could diminish the rationale of smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms of the disorder. Marijuana cigarettes were made available for patients with certain conditions in 1978, under a Single Patient Investigational New Drug (IND) of the FDA. A total of 14 patients ultimately received marijuana under this IND. Compassionate use ended in 1992, due in part to the unpredictability of administering the drug, and the development of newer, more potent and longer lasting alternatives, Jones reported. [One such alternative is Marinol, a synthetic derivative of the major active constituent of marijuana, which was developed with support from NCI. In 1985, FDA approved Marinol for treating the nausea and vomiting of patients undergoing chemotherapy and, in 1992, for use in wasting in patients with AIDS. However some patients, especially those with nausea, say they have difficulty swallowing a capsule.] These reasons most likely contributed to the decline in research proposals to use marijuana in clinical trials. NIH welcomes clinical investigators to submit proposals for studying the therapeutic effects of marijuana, Leshner said. As with all NIH-funded research, he added, the studies must be carefully peer-reviewed and approved. "You can argue policy and you can argue politics all you want," workshop chair Beaver concluded, "but if you haven't got the data, then you haven't got an issue." The group will provide a written summary of its conclusions to NIH director Dr. Harold Varmus in 4 to 5 weeks. This will assist Varmus in considering what actions NIH could take to fund research on the therapeutic potential of marijuana for patients with certain diseases. It's a tough problem that deserves thoughtful consideration by those for and against changes in the laws. But it's human nature to see the seemingly obvious benefits and minimize the problems. Without more science to help build a consensus on the benefits and risks, it will be that much tougher to have sensible changes in the laws. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,760 by drook 12/12/12 1:17:03 PM Reply	But the laws now prohibit doing the science There's a term for that ... something about catching a multiple of 11 or something like that. -- Drew
Post #367,761 by Another Scott 12/12/12 1:24:21 PM Reply	That's an easier law to change than the others. Some say that Obama can sign an Executive Order to remove MJ from Schedule I (see the end of this story - http://www.huffingto...on_n_2165852.html ). If it were that easy, presumably it could be reversed just as easily during the next administration. Maybe that's another reason why Obama hasn't been persuaded thus far. I'm not for the status quo. I just want us to know more before we do our leaping. Letting the NIH do the science is a sensible, long-overdue, step. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,763 by mmoffitt 12/12/12 1:44:15 PM Reply	Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. http://www.usatoday....-effects/1751011/ Good thing we legalized it before we knew what we were doing though, eh?
Post #367,769 by Another Scott 12/12/12 3:45:54 PM Reply	Thanks.
Post #367,787 by crazy 12/12/12 10:43:13 PM Reply	Your straw man, not mine Ok, AS, then do a balance of harm calc. Don't forget the include all the expense to treat aids cases from the prison anal rape that MM would like to subject some of us to.
Post #367,792 by Another Scott 12/12/12 11:12:14 PM Reply	You talking to me? :-) We all do balance of harm calculations every day. I'm not going to be changing my behavior any time soon. My job isn't to write the laws or regulations. I don't have the time nor expertise to present a strong enough case to get you to change your mind or modify your position. It's academic for me at the moment. Similarly, I'm upset by various other injustices in my state and country. I can't push learning more about marijuana pharmacology and drug laws up above the other things. It's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate your thoughts and participation, but you're not going to win. :-) Have fun. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,798 by crazy 12/13/12 5:56:35 AM Reply	I didn't say it was your job And you certainly don't have to make a commitment to work for anything. But you have no goals, you have questions. And your questions will probably not be answered in your lifetime. Your questions are primarily long term harm compared to the short term cost, but since the immediate harm is not on your doorstep, it isn't worth your time, and costs are not just dollars, so there are subjective measurements involved. Until then, it is unprovable accusations. Any time I try to focus on a specific thing, and provide safer usage and alternatives to the ASSUMED harmful methods, you respond with a shitload of open questions, and no preferred direction for me to work with. Your questions seem to have nothing (or very little) to do with a person's behavior while under the influence, more along the long term health costs. Remove ALL smoking from the equation. Vaporizer only. Portable. Joints, pipes, bongs not used. Poof, most of your ASSUMED health issues disappear.
Post #367,800 by Another Scott 12/13/12 8:37:05 AM Reply	And how would that work, exactly? Law: "Pot is legal to consume if you use a vaporizer. If not, it's illegal due to the health risk to you and those around you." Stoner#1: "Man, that's messed up. I don't like vaporizers. It mellows my harsh." And so, Stoner#1 ends up in the same position as now - breaking the law. How would your proposal be a solution? I think I've outlined several of my concerns. You view them differently - that's fine. Whether they're resolved in my lifetime is immaterial to the discussion, isn't it? But you have no goals, you have questions. Again, I want rational, sensible policy. In my mind, the details of that policy are not clear and I think need to be reasonably clear before radical changes are made. Remember how things used to be before Sen. Harkin and others decided that the FDA had no business regulating "herbal supplements"? Do you see the differences between then and now? We're bombarded with ads for "5 Hour Energy" and "Vitamins" and so forth that make all sorts of wild claims about "helps promote XYZ health" while at the same time there's the ubiquitous 2 point text "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease." What do you suppose the marketplace would be like if pot were handled the same way? Yes, more questions. But questions in service of the goal of finding a rational, sensible policy. We seem to be talking past each other, so I'll quit now. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,802 by crazy 12/13/12 9:42:31 AM Reply	Easy At that point you can treat the actual issue, not the substance. Alcohol is illegal to inhale in some areas. Not others. http://en.wikipedia....ol_without_liquid The delivery mechanism is what makes it illegal. We already live in a world with many laws like that. My flavored rolling papers are illegal if they are sold with tobacco. Federal level. But it is not illegal when sold alone, or with "legal" herbs which can kill you. Buy any can of paint or solvent and you will see it various illegal uses. Oh well.
Post #367,803 by drook 12/13/12 10:14:13 AM Reply	View it from the other side Imagine there were no existing laws against marijuana. On what basis would you make it illegal? It may cause unquantified harm to some people when consumed via some delivery mechanisms? That's not enough to ban something. That makes the existing ban a bad law, which should be repealed. IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof. -- Drew
Post #367,805 by Another Scott 12/13/12 10:56:45 AM Reply	Thought experiments are easy. I'm sympathetic to the "minimal laws and no more" viewpoint - I really am. But like it or not, we live in a complicated society. Substances which are addictive (to some substantial fraction of the population), which interfere with judgement, motor control, etc., are different from others. They can destroy societies (and not just because they're illegal - look at the history of opium in China - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars ) It never hurts to ask the question "cui bono?" and see where things lead. Some consequences are easier to foresee than others. We tried "no laws against marijuana". Similarly with cocaine. Heroin was developed and touted as a safer, non-addictive alternative to morphine - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Heroin#History . There are good (and bad) reasons why we have the drug laws we do - they didn't popup out of no where. IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof. Logically, maybe. But practically, no. Practically, you have to convince enough legislators and the federal/state executive and the courts that you are right to demand changes. That means addressing their interests and concerns. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,806 by crazy 12/13/12 10:59:57 AM Reply	That's a crock You are comparing heroin to cannabis on addiction potential and lethality. Wow. No point in discussing, if you pull that type of false equivalence. $respect--;
Post #367,807 by Another Scott 12/13/12 11:10:05 AM Reply	Read me in my posts. Your persecution complex on this topic is getting in the way of your understanding. For some people, MJ is addictive (whether psychologically or physically, it doesn't much matter). For some people, heroin or crack is something they can take or leave and they'll never be addicted with casual usage. The underlying issue is the same: There are some substances that cause reduction in motor control, blurring of judgement, and in come cases, addiction. They're not like jellybeans. You have acknowledged that (at least in part). We (MM and I) don't fully accept the picture that you're painting, and you seemingly don't accept that there are issues that need to be addressed before legalization is considered. If that's the case, it's a stalemate and as you say, there's no point in continuing. Cheers, Scott.
Post #367,808 by crazy 12/13/12 12:07:37 PM Reply	But the statement is wrong ALL people who use opiate based narcotics of heroin strength for more than 2 weeks WILL become addicted. No choice. You find a random outlier, it won't matter. This is pretty much a 100% of the population. A LARGE percentage of them who dabble with it over time WILL become addicted. Physical, with serious (but rarely fatal) withdrawel symptom. People go nuts during that phase, and the crime rate of this population will definitively jump as they steal for their next fix. For those that dabble and/or are addicted to opiate based narcotics, they have a decent likelyhood of screwing up their dose and are playing with death, directly, on every injection and crushed oxycontin. I have at least 1/2 a dozen cousin level reltaives that have died via a variety of narcotics. We can all be pretty sure the lethality of random dozing is unknown, but significant. Cannabis has no lethal dose that a mere mortal can consume by smoking. If someone is playing with concentrated extracts, I'm sure they can hit it sooner or later. Like any other random concentrated substance, you need to be careful with it at that point. Like cinnamon. Like don't consume enough for 10,000 doses, you will be unhappy. Probably won't kill you, but you will be unhappy for a few hours. No one has EVER died from THC overdose. While any mood altering substance can be addictive (jelly beans, pistacios, alcohol, cough syrup) we typically limit the attempt of controlling the individual at the point that addiction causes harm, while allowing all access to most substances, as long as they haven't proven dangerous. This is flipped on cannabis, with a huge amount of assumptions that need to be disproven, which is much more difficult and sometimes impossible. Why is it up to those in jail to prove this? Because their cultural method of relaxation pissed the gringoes off, and we are suffering for it this many years later? Because the jazz musicians scared the high class assholes? Because Dupont didn't not want hemp oil competing with petroleum based oil? Why is it up to the persecuted (when you are threatening to put someone in jail for behavior that does not affect you (at least no more than people buying alcohol and cough syrup) that you don't like, that's persecuting)? Not up you to accept. But I always want to know why, because why I may not agree with you on a subject, you are at least well read enough to see multiple sides and gather info on it. Demographics will win no matter what, it WILL be legal, it'll just take a while. I just will correct bullshit on the subject when I see it, and false equivalences is a major bullshit item.
Post #367,809 by drook 12/13/12 12:25:55 PM Reply	Different part of the issue Yes, the practical reality is that legislators would need to be convinced before anything changes. But shouldn't we try to establish some objective facts about the drug itself before deciding what to do about it? That's where I'm coming from WRT effects, side-effects, addiction, etc. There is plenty of recent research -- granted, much of it conducted outside the U.S. -- showing that marijuana has fewer and milder direct health consequences compared to both tobacco and alcohol, addiction rates nowhere close to the other substances you compared to, intoxicating effects milder than alcohol, and numerous profound positive effects. As long as people continue denying those facts, or (more commonly) denying that those facts have been sufficiently proven, it's not possible to discuss what laws are needed. -- Drew
Post #367,732 by mmoffitt 12/12/12 8:30:02 AM Reply	In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... "Get high, so that you'll like people." Funny that. In that 10 year old post I criticized the 60's social constructs for being disingenuous since all that "love" came about only during stupors. Thanks for confirming that for me.
Post #367,734 by crazy 12/12/12 8:32:51 AM 12/12/12 8:36:11 AM Reply	Did I expect an actual reponse No. At least not from you. But as the token irrational hater (as so eloquently posted 10 years ago), it really doesn't matter. I got my point out there, and you provided a nice launch. Thanks. BTW: You are also part of the macho homophobe group, so it dovetails nicely with your base viewpoints. thanks. Edited by crazy Dec. 12, 2012, 08:36:11 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,747 by boxley 12/12/12 10:02:45 AM Reply	hey during that timeperiod "since all that "love" came about only during stupors" most of the love was in between stupors, didnt like mixing my pleasures Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #367,788 by crazy 12/12/12 10:45:18 PM Reply	You were probably right You were a preachy asshole that harangued them, and the only time they could stand you was while while stoned.
Post #367,794 by folkert 12/12/12 11:36:51 PM Reply	Oh come on... That pot-shot was un-called for. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #367,797 by crazy 12/13/12 5:39:51 AM 12/13/12 6:41:04 AM Reply	Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me I can only be told I am stupid by an irrational loud person with no logic behind him but a shitload of prejudice and shitload of directed MUST FIND EVIL studies for so long before reacting. Especially when they are disproven for the most part. A bunch of assumptions with no experience or logic. Based on 60 year old propaganda. Once inhaled, insane and insulted forever. That what I'm arguing against here. And I'm arguing against this attitude with MY LIFE ON THE LINE. This SOB wants to LOCK ME UP. He wants people with guns to show up at my house, take away anything I own, rip me from my family, and put me in a place where the vast number of people have animalistic antagonism towards me, and will end up physically and mentally torturing me for many years. THIS IS HIS GOAL. Yet he's stated, very eloquently, that he's associated it an irrational hatred due to his loved ones dying by a "stoned" driver. Stoned on pot. I'd have to read it all again (and I'm not) to find out if there are any other chems involved. We KNOW that no matter what the assumptions are, DUIs go DOWN in areas where pot smoking goes up. His random event, an outlier, is driving him to support a fascist state. AND THIS IS THE GUY WHO HATES THE GOVERNMENT AND ANY/ALL CONTROL THEY HAVE OVER HIS LIFE, AND IS WAITING FOR THE REVOLUTION TO HAPPEN. WHY, SO HE CAN JUST KILL THE POT SMOKERS RATHER THAN PAY TO LOCK THEM UP? FUCK HIM! So no, I'll escalate as he does. Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 05:41:31 AM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:04:29 AM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:41:04 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,799 by crazy 12/13/12 6:14:42 AM 12/13/12 6:26:46 AM Reply	Also, interesting Hey MM, you notice that? You have been incredibly insulting, diving in imagined personal areas, since you assume anyone who smokes pot is simply incapable of rationality. Yet you display some pretty significant disconnects to reality in your thrashing around. When you go personal, people ignore it. When I go a bit personal, people (Greg, and I'm sure others nodded) probably got very unhappy. Know why? I assume you thought: Yeah, cause they hate you. Nahh. Pretty sure that's not it. That's just you. Right now they are annoyed with me. Because people don't like seeing the village idiot beat down, no matter how much of an asshole he is. It is like beating a small child. They are probably worried about your mental stability. Any recent suicidal ideation? I'll try to tone it down. For them, not you. Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:19:25 AM EST Edited by crazy Dec. 13, 2012, 06:26:46 AM EST Expand All History
Post #367,804 by mmoffitt 12/13/12 10:19:57 AM Reply	Do as you wish. Matters not to me.
Post #367,814 by pwhysall 12/13/12 1:31:00 PM Reply	You're both coming across as mardy twats Chill pills all around.
Post #367,815 by boxley 12/13/12 1:41:14 PM Reply	twats is a gendered insult Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 57 years. meep
Post #367,818 by pwhysall 12/13/12 1:47:29 PM Reply	Not when I say it, it's not Anyone can be a twat, cunt, prick, dick, cock-end, dickhead or bell-end, irrespective of their gender. UK swearing is an equal-opportunity exercise. But trust the Americans to over-complicate things, as usual.
Post #367,816 by crazy 12/13/12 1:45:47 PM Reply	kiss kiss
Post #367,819 by mmoffitt 12/13/12 1:48:43 PM Reply	You didn't like the Quagmire picture?

Welcome to IWETHEY!