Day 1
-
Zombie Apocalypse.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
011111100010 wrote:
Zombie Apocalypse.
Pot-smoking zombies :laugh:
-
Has Canadian GDP gone down yet from all those people saying 'fuck it' and lying in bed? :)
That will be followed closely. Stay tuned!
-
Florida made the liquid forms legal just over a year ago. My retired brother-in-law decided that it might be just the thing to help with relief from arthritis. I didn't care. It wouldn't affect me, right? Wrong! Here are my observations over the last year. After getting his state pot license and paying a 'doctor' $120 for a 15 minute diagnosis, it's off to the dispensary where he spends around $60 a week for a couple of vape tanks and drops. Even before he was getting high every day he would call frequently...usually a couple of times a week. Nowadays it's an expected everyday event...much rambling and self-aggrandizing on his part, and lately always complaining about money. Last week, unbeknownst to me, he asked my wife to borrow money and she obliged. When she told me about it later, I suggested that he should get off the pot and get a job instead of borrowing. She had already raised the issue with his wife who's response was 'Oh no, he really needs it...he's impossible to live with when he doesn't have it'. :wtf: So, he's now chemically dependent? :confused: Also, I'm sure most employers still mandate drug tests he couldn't get a job anyway. Also, I've recently learned that he has been seeing a shrink, apparently having PTSD over the death of his 87 y/o mother....while the rest of us have moved on, he's still stuck on it...probably because he is retired, bored, and stoned. I wonder how long it will be before he needs more money. :mad:
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Your bother-in-law is a carpetbagger. He is lazy, and pot legalization will change nothing to that. It is just an excuse. Don't generalize based on a bad example.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
So? We were discussing who is more likely to start selling cannabis and I said it is more likely to be the people who already peddle similar commodities as they have the infrastructure, and it's no different from the manufacture and sale of other restricted commodities.
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes. Most suppliers will not offer "weed" as part of their stock to order for supermarkets (who sell smokes and booze).
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The only statements you have proven invalid are straw-man statements that you and you alone made.
You have the right to that opinion :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of what relevance is that to the fact that I never said "plant"; that was your word, not mine. At least you now seem to admit that there are indeed different variations of the drug
It is not the same drug, even if you want it to be that bad :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes.
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not the same drug
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic. We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one. If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes.
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not the same drug
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic. We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one. If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
You never "dealt with government for a license"? And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic.
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed. It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
I'm not; that's just your suggestion.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
You never "dealt with government for a license"? And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic.
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed. It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
I'm not; that's just your suggestion.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You never "dealt with government for a license"?
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
Not a delivery network, not a network of legal vendors.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed.
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
Synthetic cannabis is already a controlled substance in Canada; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You never "dealt with government for a license"?
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
Not a delivery network, not a network of legal vendors.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed.
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
Synthetic cannabis is already a controlled substance in Canada; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Dunno how it relates to the topic, but nice to quote you on the fact that it is not "just a commodity" :cool:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
More proof of your ignorance on the subject :D THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals. That's why the coffeeshops aren't allowed to sell synthetic drugs - it is not the same stuff, and hence, different rules apply.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Dunno how it relates to the topic, but nice to quote you on the fact that it is not "just a commodity" :cool:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
More proof of your ignorance on the subject :D THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals. That's why the coffeeshops aren't allowed to sell synthetic drugs - it is not the same stuff, and hence, different rules apply.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals.
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals.
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
No, it's not; it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
I'm not declaring "I won"; there is nothing to win - just pointing out that most of what you claimed is not true and based on ignorance. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
No, it's not; it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
I'm not declaring "I won"; there is nothing to win - just pointing out that most of what you claimed is not true and based on ignorance. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
I see, you are telling me what my argument is? And you don't think that's a straw-man argument? :laugh: How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
-
Your bother-in-law is a carpetbagger. He is lazy, and pot legalization will change nothing to that. It is just an excuse. Don't generalize based on a bad example.
Very Large Brain wrote:
Your bother-in-law is a carpetbagger. He is lazy
Quite true! What I did not disclose is that he retired at the ripe old age of 52...actually feigned an injury and accepted a settlement. :| My point was that his financial situation has gotten worse since he now spends almost $300 a month for pot because he 'needs' it.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
I see, you are telling me what my argument is? And you don't think that's a straw-man argument? :laugh: How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
Already done that, none of your arguments are left. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
Already done that, none of your arguments are left. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Already done that,
No, the only things you have argued against the whole thread have been things of your own creation.