stoner furs

[Dark Angel Wolf]

I don't get stoned very much anymore but I can hang out sometime. Just msg me if u want to hang. I hear sushi night is kewl.

[velvetkytten]

I'm always up for hanging out too. I'm a licensed user :)

[RaiinyCiity]

Whagwan~ reporting in! Friendly neighborhood stonerdrake's always up for a toke n a joke! Plenty of stoner friends but none in the fandom, would love to make some! Not licensed but definitely seasoned ;V

[Draco_toxx]

I'm always up for hanging out too. I'm a licensed user :)

i'm in the process of getting my license too

[Pat The Fox]

even columbia is considering ending the prohibition of cocaine because the prohibition just causes more harm than good and is utterly ineffective

I glanced across this thread and did feel the need to point out that just because a government decides to give up trying to control something, does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing. I imagine a good chunk of the reason South American countries are looking to stop enforcement is because of the violent reprocussion those that traffiking drugs enact upon the citizens nd establishments of the country and less about the potential harm these drugs can cause. Given the choice of allowing a potentially harmful substances in to the populations hands, or engaging in a bloody battle with a ruthless force, they are chosing the decision that lessens the violence caused by direct actions. I imagine they are also trying to subvert the cartel's power in another manner by removing their control of the trade.

Just some food for thought. Back to your regular schedule social connection thread. *darts out as he is a non-user*

[Draco_toxx]

I glanced across this thread and did feel the need to point out that just because a government decides to give up trying to control something, does not necessarily mean that it is a good thing. I imagine a good chunk of the reason South American countries are looking to stop enforcement is because of the violent reprocussion those that traffiking drugs enact upon the citizens nd establishments of the country and less about the potential harm these drugs can cause. Given the choice of allowing a potentially harmful substances in to the populations hands, or engaging in a bloody battle with a ruthless force, they are chosing the decision that lessens the violence caused by direct actions. I imagine they are also trying to subvert the cartel's power in another manner by removing their control of the trade.

Just some food for thought. Back to your regular schedule social connection thread. *darts out as he is a non-user*

it's because ultimately, it's up to the people to decide what they want to do, and how they ruin their lives, since alcohol is legal and lots of people, especially in places like alaska, have had their lives ruined by it, and prohibition just pushes the use of these substances into the shadows, like when the USA tried to have an alcohol prohibition, all it did was make the use illegal, it didn't stop people, it created a lucrative black market, if it's not illegal, the price goes down, and the black market loses all power, and the cocaine cartels in south america will collapse

[Pat The Fox]

I can only agree partially with that. While I am all for free choice, a lot of synthetic drugs are specificly engineered to be highly addicting (E, Meth, "Bath Salts", etc.) and even a moment of curiousity can turn to a life ruined. Some regulation needs to be in place to avoid people being exposed to these items just like we have regulations to keep mercury out of our water systems.

I do not disagree with the fact alcohol, while legal, can be just as harmful as some of the substances out there. I think part of the problem is cultural influences. Take your standard college campus for example. The promiscuous consumption of alcohol is sterotyped in to the experience and promoted at every corner. This advertised lifestyle mixed with the stressful and sometimes isolated experience as a college student can lead students to consume far more than they normally would. If you put these people in a peer group where it has been shown it is okay not to consume irresponsibly, many people significantly reduce their alcoholic intake and report that they were uncomfortable with the amount they were drinking before.

Also, prohibition doesn't always backfire if it is done in the proper manner and for the right reasons. Take cigarettes as an example. Smoking is slowly being more and more resticted by governments, and usage of tobacco amoung individuals is not increasing in response to that restriction. This is because the prohibition is being done along side education of the extremely harmful effects of the product rather than just for puritan values.

I imagine if we want to discuss this more a new thread should be created, unless people are okay with such a discussion existing alongside their attempts to connect. I don't want to derail the spirit of this thread if it is just for connecting with others.

[Draco_toxx]

I can only agree partially with that. While I am all for free choice, a lot of synthetic drugs are specificly engineered to be highly addicting (E, Meth, "Bath Salts", etc.) and even a moment of curiousity can turn to a life ruined. Some regulation needs to be in place to avoid people being exposed to these items just like we have regulations to keep mercury out of our water systems.

I do not disagree with the fact alcohol, while legal, can be just as harmful as some of the substances out there. I think part of the problem is cultural influences. Take your standard college campus for example. The promiscuous consumption of alcohol is sterotyped in to the experience and promoted at every corner. This advertised lifestyle mixed with the stressful and sometimes isolated experience as a college student can lead students to consume far more than they normally would. If you put these people in a peer group where it has been shown it is okay not to consume irresponsibly, many people significantly reduce their alcoholic intake and report that they were uncomfortable with the amount they were drinking before.

Also, prohibition doesn't always backfire if it is done in the proper manner and for the right reasons. Take cigarettes as an example. Smoking is slowly being more and more resticted by governments, and usage of tobacco amoung individuals is not increasing in response to that restriction. This is because the prohibition is being done along side education of the extremely harmful effects of the product rather than just for puritan values.

I imagine if we want to discuss this more a new thread should be created, unless people are okay with such a discussion existing alongside their attempts to connect. I don't want to derail the spirit of this thread if it is just for connecting with others.

in the end it comes purely down to proper education instead of demonization, aswell as oversight to ensure safety

[tokar]

in the end it comes purely down to proper education instead of demonization, aswell as oversight to ensure safety

even when smoking was accepted behaviour, there were more people drinking than there were smoking.  if the gov't wants to reduce drinking to a responsible level among the population, then advertising for alcohol and the showing of drinking on tv and in movies will have to be regulated just like tobacco was, yet we know that won't happen. too many drinkers in gov't.  look at the show, two and a half men, with charlie sheen always with a drink in his hand or nearby.  so the young crowd figures if it is ok for him it is ok for me.  as for the other manufactured drugs, E, meth etc, they should always be illegal.  tobacco and marijuana are natural weeds with tobacco becoming legal and marijuana (hemp) becoming illegal so that George Washington could protect his cotton crops since hemp wears better and lasts longer.  historically tobacco is a fairly recent habit starting somewhere around king henry's time and alcohol being mentioned in the bible.  "and He turned water in to wine"

bath salts are not a drug per se but have been found to give one a high.  they were developed for other purposes and not as a recreational drug.

[Draco_toxx]

even when smoking was accepted behaviour, there were more people drinking than there were smoking.  if the gov't wants to reduce drinking to a responsible level among the population, then advertising for alcohol and the showing of drinking on tv and in movies will have to be regulated just like tobacco was, yet we know that won't happen. too many drinkers in gov't.  look at the show, two and a half men, with charlie sheen always with a drink in his hand or nearby.  so the young crowd figures if it is ok for him it is ok for me.  as for the other manufactured drugs, E, meth etc, they should always be illegal.  tobacco and marijuana are natural weeds with tobacco becoming legal and marijuana (hemp) becoming illegal so that George Washington could protect his cotton crops since hemp wears better and lasts longer.  historically tobacco is a fairly recent habit starting somewhere around king henry's time and alcohol being mentioned in the bible.  "and He turned water in to wine"

bath salts are not a drug per se but have been found to give one a high.  they were developed for other purposes and not as a recreational drug.

erm, you have your facts slightly off with hemp, it wasn't outlawed until the 1900's, it was even mandatory for all farmers in the USA to have a crop of hemp for war time use in WW1 and or 2 for uniforms and other fabrics, it was outlawed because it was poised to replace wood for paper, just like the true purpose of prohibition was to eliminate moon shine ethanol fuel

[tokar]

erm, you have your facts slightly off with hemp, it wasn't outlawed until the 1900's, it was even mandatory for all farmers in the USA to have a crop of hemp for war time use in WW1 and or 2 for uniforms and other fabrics, it was outlawed because it was poised to replace wood for paper, just like the true purpose of prohibition was to eliminate moon shine ethanol fuel

oops   my bad     but either way it was made illegal to protect one group of crop (trees) harvesters (loggers) whereas hemp would be a fast growing renewable resource and the trees could then be used for building or furniture.

[Pat The Fox]

Tokar, what is being branded as "bath salts" that I am talking about are psychoactive substances that have severe, untested effects. Traditional bath salts do not give any high. The new synthetic substances being called bath salts are only being called bath salts to skirt laws.

Also, totally agree Draco, education and responsible usage is really key for most things in life.

[Draco_toxx]

oops   my bad     but either way it was made illegal to protect one group of crop (trees) harvesters (loggers) whereas hemp would be a fast growing renewable resource and the trees could then be used for building or furniture.

hemp produces fabric, food, fuel, building materials and more, only reason it's not utilized is because it can cut so many industries out of their cushy monopolies

[Draco_toxx]

Tokar, what is being branded as "bath salts" that I am talking about are psychoactive substances that have severe, untested effects. Traditional bath salts do not give any high. The new synthetic substances being called bath salts are only being called bath salts to skirt laws.

Also, totally agree Draco, education and responsible usage is really key for most things in life.

it's like "spice" and other designer "incense" that have to constantly be added to the controlled substances list

[professor whovianart]

whatever ya`ll do, just do not start using 'krokodil', that be the worst stuff out there, originated in russia as a cheaper option of heroin.

that stuff be zombie bad, really nasty stuff, google image it to see for yourself.

and to read on it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html


makes bath salts seem super tame in comparison.