I graduated from USC in 2015. If I think of my 500 closest friends/acquaintances, there’s maybe 10 (2%) that have never smoked ganj.
Edit- that’s aggressive. It’s probably less than 10 people
OT: I think the drinking age should be lowered back to 18
- Thread starter ken in sacramento
- Start date
I graduated from USC in 2015. If I think of my 500 closest friends/acquaintances, there’s maybe 10 (2%) that have never smoked ganj.
Edit- that’s aggressive. It’s probably less than 10 people
I don’t know the exact percentage but that’s not surprising.. we were leaving the worst economic crisis since the 1930’s during Obama’s presidency. Had nowhere to go but up.
In addition to that- he’s the man. Not sure his economic policies helped but he’s a slick mf
Awww. I forget pot does everything from curing baldness to doing your taxes. Why don’t you smoke a joint and see if it will grow your lady parts enough so you don’t have to compensate. Bless your little parts.
You sound like a sith dealing in absolutes.
There's always a grey area that's worth to be discussed.
I agree parents have gotten a little to soft when disciplining their kids.
But you have to realize that not everyone has such perfect family structures and laws and processes have to deal with it to help protect these children.
For every parent that's soft on their kids, you have a parent that's actually too violent and beats their children unmercifully.
That goes for emotional abuse as well.
I completely disagree that a child should fear their parent. If you take this mentality, this is a big reason why you have young children committing suicide instead of discussing their emotional stress with their parents.
A better way to put it; a child should fear the disapproval of their parent while also developing an identity to decide if their parent's actions are right or wrong.
If you take your view, then you are opening up the door for the next Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, or bully/suicide set of kids next to take their matters into their own hands without carrying about their parents.
At the time I wrote that it was Wednesday. It couldn't have been Friday anywhere on Earth.
You sound like a sith dealing in absolutes.
There's always a grey area that's worth to be discussed.
I agree parents have gotten a little to soft when disciplining their kids.
But you have to realize that not everyone has such perfect family structures and laws and processes have to deal with it to help protect these children.
For every parent that's soft on their kids, you have a parent that's actually too violent and beats their children unmercifully.
That goes for emotional abuse as well.
I completely disagree that a child should fear their parent. If you take this mentality, this is a big reason why you have young children committing suicide instead of discussing their emotional stress with their parents.
A better way to put it; a child should fear the disapproval of their parent while also developing an identity to decide if their parent's actions are right or wrong.
If you take your view, then you are opening up the door for the next Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, or bully/suicide set of kids next to take their matters into their own hands without carrying about their parents.
Disagree. There are no grey areas in life. Only those unwilling to do the critical thinking necessary to follow a problem to it's logical conclusion.
In my experience, people use the term "grey area" as a cop out because they don't personally agree with or like where the logic is taking them....so they stop thinking about it because it makes them uncomfortable and call it a grey area. Total cop out.
Of course a child should have the correct balance of all of life's emotions. All I'm saying is...according to our laws, there is a deadline for teaching our children all of that, and that deadline is 18 yrs of age.
You are correct though: I do deal in absolutes. There's always a correct answer. Always.
So you think voting for Hillary would have been a better option? If you think that, being drunk is the least of your worries.
You don't call yourself ConKreteCock for nothing.
Sure ~ Below is a good breakdown of the gut-brain axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut–brain_axis
As Hippocrates stated over 2000 years ago - "All diseases begin in the gut" - that research is showing that was 100% true - even in cancer.
Alcohol (Ethanol) used in anything other than very moderate amounts (e.g. a glass or two of wine before and/or the beginning stages of dinner {liver glycogen sweet spot}) over time can have dramatic effects on your health. It not only alters your gut microbiotica, but also causes permeability to your gut wall lining and intestines, depletes nutrients - especially the stress B-vits, disrupts REM sleep (circadian rhythm), depletes NAD+ and much more.
Also, there's plenty of NIH-funded studies on the detrimental effects of alcohol on the developing brain - and they are profound.
Finally, alcohol has been shown to be the absolute worst drug on society - exceeding the likes of heroin and crack:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-11660210
Edibles, microdose mushrooms etc. Zero Vape.
Lol. Nah, the only reason I named my handle that is because everyone seemed to have incorporated some form of either "Game" or "Cock" , and, the best job I ever had was being a dispatcher of a crap ton of concrete trucks and when the crap hit the fan .... everyone in the whole company, including the President of the company, relied on YOU to make a decision. Right, wrong, or whatever, it was your baby and you lived with the second guessing.
It was an awesome experience. So I went with ConKreteCock.
No. I would never vote for Hillary. Maybe I just should have stayed in bed all that day.
Cause the Fed had 0 rate interest. There was no other way to go. That has now been surpassed big time. Dow Jones was what 18k at Obama and now almost 26K. Give credit where it is due not hate.
The number of fatalities where a driver tested positive for any cannabinoid (Delta 9 or any other metabolite) increased from 55 (11% of all fatalities) in 2013 to 139 (21% of all fatalities) in 2017.
Do you have a source for this? I believe you fwiw, just would like to check. Also fwiw, I'm pro legalization and anti regulation.
Strongly disagree. Go back to your OP and instead of drinking, insert "using pot." Same exact argument. Tomato / tomatto.
And no, it's not a grey area.
Do you honestly believe that being legal has caused the number of users to increase? It's always been my belief that people who want to smoke, will smoke. Even when it was illegal, still is here, it was and is readily accessible. The only deterrent I've ever seen has been jobs that drug screen. Some will give it up for their job. Others will try to find ways around it.
Just gave you stats from Colorado, believe them or not. People are saying that weed is less a factor than alcohol with DUI. I'm saying no to that.
For one thing, I suspect sometimes that correct answer is either D) All of the above or E) None of the above.
For another, Dwight Eisenhower would beg to differ.
"People talk about the middle of the road as though it were unacceptable. Actually, all human problems, excepting morals, come into the gray areas. Things are not all black and white. There have to be compromises. The middle of the road is all of the usable surface. The extremes, right and left, are in the gutters." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
I have to agree with this. I am a teacher and while there are exceptions to every rule, the majority of 18yo's have not clue about politics or who is running, they vote on who celebs or voting for or for who their parents tell them to vote for. Hell most adults have not clue they simply vote red or blue without knowing anything about the candidate they are voting for.
You have an extremely simplistic approach to life then. I pray that you never have to deal with a child that commits suicide, a child that is murdered, or any complicated situation that arises where finding the 'correct answer' is not easy and is part of a hard choice you have to make for another human being.
Something that is a grey area is when 'your' correct answer might be different from someone else's correct answer.
In my experience, people that deal in absolutes have no empathy whatsoever and refuse to look at things in different perspectives. Maybe the people that stop talking to you about anything in a grey area see that it's hopeless to discuss anything with you because you've made up your mind regardless of the facts. Seems to be a common theme with the rise of this BS anti-vax movement.
And King Ward was right. You have a very fitting name
What do you expect? When has an OT thread on FGF stayed COMPLETELY on topic past page 1?
BULLSHIT!!! 100% will say ALCOHOL. If you don't know what the hell you are talking about, why the hell do you make up lies???
In 2013 (the latest year I have numbers on) OVER 350 traffic deaths had alcohol as the contributing factor ... in SOUTH CAROLINA alone. Time for you to STFU before someone else does it for you IDIOT.
HORRY COUNTY, SC (WMBF) – A report released this week has South Carolina ranking second in the nation for drunk-driving deaths.
The report from SafeWise, a home security company, also designates South Carolina as a focus area to help fight the number of people getting behind the wheel while impaired.
SafeWise used the most recent data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to find the number of impaired driving deaths in each state.
That data was compared to U.S. Census Bureau estimates to determine which states ranked the highest for impaired driving deaths per capita.
In S.C., there were 7.98 impaired driving fatalities per 100,000 residents, according to the report. That is second to Montana with nine fatalities. According to SafeWise, a higher population doesn't necessarily mean more impaired driving deaths.[/QUOTE]
This reminds me of stats I heard years ago that were probably only slightly exagerrated. It went something like this:
Alcohol is involved in 50% of traffic accidents. In 50% of those, only the passengers were drinking. In 50% of those where the driver was drinking, the other driver was at fault. That means that 87.5% of traffic accidents are caused by sober people.
Last edited:
Well I drove a bus in training before I got my license and was assigned a bus the day after my 16th birthday and drove for 2.5 years at 2.90 /hour. Not sure which states gave out DLs at 14 but it wasn’t S.C. in the 70s. This face scares me.
At the time I was 14, I was eligible and got my license. This was in 1958. I don’t remember when SC changed the law to raise it to 16, but it was changed before my kids were 16.
I got mine in the spring of 1965. I was still 14. That was the daylight restricted license. You were eligible to try for it a month after receiving a learner's permit. I didn't have any wrecks or kill anybody. I did fishtail through a man's yard while he was cutting the grass and almost nail him. What they are doing now is probably better. There are a lot more vehicles on the road now than there were back then.
