267
By Fcuked - / Wednesday 23 March 2011 04:40 / New Zealand
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
Comments
Reply
  skreech96  |  0

wow, just because you get high one weekend and get a fuck in there, doesn't mean he or she is headed to either. get some common fucking sense. wait...OH NO! I took to hits off a joint last weekend, shit I need fucking rehab!!!!

Reply
  liquidfireKAN  |  0

how do you figure that? It's not the friends fault. OP was obviously being stupid enough to pis off her friend. Also, is it the friend's fault that OP got "high" and had sex? Obviously not. Since age isn't included I don't know if OP was old enough to have sex so I can't comment about that. However OP should know not to do drugs. I'm sure that OP is old enough to know right from wrong. Now if OP's friend had lied to her parents about this it would have been completely different. But if there are pictures then if was completely the OP's fault.

Reply
  Krajjan  |  9

Divulging personal matters that have no bearing upon the physical well-being of the person (such as smoking pot or getting laid) is a little extreme for just saying 'meow'.

Reply
  jablome  |  6

A friend should support and defend self destructive behavior? Yes, everyone needs a friend who will get more bullets when you run out during Russian Roulette.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

Okay, let's clear this up for the idiots. Caffeine CAN be a drug; some faiths have banned the use of it (correct me if I'm wrong, but some Muslim faiths in the Middle East have banned the drinking of caffeine because it's deemed a drug). Caffeine is usually not considered a drug until you start drinking 4-5 cups a day, I'm pretty sure, but I do know that this amount varies. Alcohol is a fucking drug, people. It messes with your system, clearly. You can't see as well, your entire personality may change for the entire time the alcohol is even in your system (i.e. a lot of people do shit they wouldn't normally do under the influence of alcohol and... oh, right! Marijuana too.) Marijuana is the most OBVIOUS drug out of these three. I don't think I need to get into why. What's the common link between these three? All three have a limit, and CAN change the way you act. Addiction to any of these is possible. Oh, and OP never stated what they used to get high. It may not have even been marijuana. Food for thought...

Reply
  maa_rico  |  4

I have a feeling op is not telling the whole story, the friend probably warned op to stop being annoying or else he/she would do what he/she did. in other words YFDI.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

86- No, you're right. I've never heard of sarcasm. Please, with your infinite wisdom, teach me. I misread Captain Morgan's post, so I didn't see him calling the dude who thought marijuana wasn't a drug a dumb-ass. Apologies to him. To the other dude, my post still applies.

Reply
  maa_rico  |  4

82 you are so right, i have to add one more thing that is very addictive aswell, which is this site, i say this because i'm reading posts and comments from 8 pm last night up to right now i had 7 cups of coffee to help me through the night so i wont fall asleep, then i got so thirsty around 7 am today i opened up some coronas, and after that i called my dealer and got two dimes of haze, after im done posting this i'm going to the bodega to get more coffee for tonight. Damn i need help..... not with my weed though.

Reply
  DjeePee  |  24

'and it's OP's fault for breaking the law.' Wooooow, she broke the law, what an unforgivable mistake! OP made her own, personal decisions without wondering or the government would approve of it! Wooow. No, seriously, some people can live their life without a central government telling them what's right and wrong. Big shock, I know. If OP wants to have sex or become high, that's her decision. If you don't take drugs often enough to get addicted, there is nothing wrong with it. Self control, jippee! The only thing I wonder by reading this FML is: 'How the heck did he get pictures of your first time?' If you gave those to them, to a friend (wtf?), you deserve this.

Reply

you'd be surprised meow over and over all day would be pretty annoying, plus since that's what he sounds like when he snores, she's making fun of him, I might have done the same thing.

Reply
  ydi_4_suking  |  20

its OPs fault. who the hell takes picture of stuff they dont want to get caught doing? and unless OP and the friend were having sex, how did he have pictures of you having sex? did you do it in front of people

Reply
  dudeitsdanny  |  9

Just wanted to let you kids know that marijuana alone has no physically addictive chemicals, and is therefore only mentally addictive: You won't get physically ill from quitting. It also has more benefits than harms.. And a lot of the harm you know it to cause is a myth. Alcohol is, as a matter of fact, more harmful and impairing than pot. I don't smoke or drink, nor think smoking pot is a good idea, but it does not typically cause any permanent damage. I don't endorse it, but I think everyone should be informed about the facts.

Reply
  Taipan_fml  |  0

#108 at the very least, smoking anything is bad for you (especially long-term) because of the effect it has on your lungs. While the cannabis plant itself may have certain health benefits, such as the oils found in its seeds, I highly doubt that any benefits from using it as a drug outweigh its harmful effects.

Reply
  saksxalmo  |  20

1. Caffeine is a drug. I'm not sure why you're saying that you need to drink several cups of coffee a day for it to be considered one. A drop of alcohol is as much of a drug as a glass of it, etc. etc. 2. Saying that one drug is more "obviously" a drug than another is your opinion. I learned that caffeine, marijuana, alcohol, morphine, etc. are all drugs, so they all seem like "obvious" drugs to me. Just because you're used to hearing something differently doesn't mean it's correct. 3. You can die from an overdose of alcohol relatively easily, but the amount and rate of marijuana that one would have to smoke to die of an overdose is physically impossible (I can find the article that I got this information from if anyone needs it.) You can also die of a caffeine overdose easily if it's pure caffeine, but to die of a coffee overdose you'd have to drink something absurd (like 40-ish cups?) In any case, illegal drugs are not necessarily more dangerous than legal ones. On top of that, medical marijuana can be and often is smoked, so to say that it's still bad because it harms the lungs is a bit of a stretch-- you'd have to be smoking a lot of it over a long period of time. 4. We don't know what drugs she was taking, so she could have been doing legal drugs. She's also from New Zealand, which may have different drug laws than the US (New Zealanders, correct me if I'm wrong.) 5. Just because something is against the law doesn't make it bad. Laws against drugs in the US are also somewhat hypocritical because people are supposed to be free to do what does not infringe on the rights of others. If person A smokes marijuana, whose rights are they infringing on? No one's. If you outlaw a drug, you're taking away *everyone's* right to do that drug. That being said, I've never done "obvious" drugs or drunk alcohol, and I don't drink coffee. XP

Reply
  dudeitsdanny  |  9

114- I agree. Luckily, most people who smoke pot don't smoke half as much as most cigarette addicts. And person who called me a pothead- Shhh ;D But really, no, lol. My last ex smoked with her brother.. One before smoked it once or twice a week, I tried it once.. Hated the smoke and smell of it. I had hash brownies, too.. But it's not my thing. I did my research, though ;) But you can be positive pot doesn't make you stupid: My ex who smokes it often goes to Stanford.. My friend who gave me the brownies goes to MIT. my other ex works at Burger King, but.. She's smart.. Kinda. If anything it's her alcoholism for 7 years now that stunned her growth and killed brain cells..

Reply
  Taipan_fml  |  0

#123 Whew, that was a lot to read. A couple things that I'd like to point out: Medical marijuana is often prescribed to AIDS and chemotherapy patients to alleviate their suffering as they pass (making the lung thing a non-issue, as they are close to death anyway) or to make them hungry and allow them to keep food down so they'll gain weight. Even some physicians admit that they would prefer a delivery system other than smoking. Marinol, which contains synthetic THC, can be an alternative. As for your notion of people who do drugs not infringing on others' rights, I wouldn't be so sure. For example, plenty of people who smoke get behind the wheel. Yeah I know, no one YOU know who smokes does that right? Well plenty of people out there do, I've known a few. That endangers the lives of others on the road. Another example - when people smoke in apartment buildings, the smell can get into other rooms. This happened to me in the last building I lived in and it was foul. Why should they be able to infringe upon my right to breathe clean air with their drug habit?

Reply
  Spenerish  |  0

Repetition can piss a whole lot of people off. It's really not that funny and it gets you labeled as a douchebag. When someone says stop, you stop.

Reply
  Grimmerie  |  31

i'd say people smoking anything infringes my rights. i have severe asthma and even having a cloud of smoke waft into my face can send me to the hospital. of course i keep my inhaler close by, but can't always get to it in time ... on the otherhand, i really don't care what people do in private. pot really isn't all that dangerous, and if it weren't for the fact that a lot of the stuff sold in my city is laced, i'd have absolutely no issue with it.

Reply
  saksxalmo  |  20

First, medical marijuana is still smoked by some patients, so I don't really see how this is relevant... What's your point...? Second, no one is infringing on your right to breathe clean air. If you want to breathe clean air, go outside. Just because you personally don't enjoy a smell doesn't mean you can tell other people what to do with their bodies. THAT is violating their rights. You not enjoying a particular smell doesn't infringe on your rights, it just offends you/infringes on your preferences. Again, you would still have the freedom to go outside. Or, like noise complaints, there could be a law for "smell complaints" instead of outright banning drugs. Your solution is a bit too uncreative. I dislike the color orange and small children, but I don't ban them so that I don't have to see my neighbors wearing orange/with small children, because that would infringe on their reproductive rights and their freedom of expression. Why, then, should the government have control over what people put into their own bodies? It's really none of their business, and even though you may dislike the smell, it's none of your business either. Someone else said something about asthma, and I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. First of all, regular smoking, pollution, campfires, barbecues, etc. are all legal even though they pose a threat to asthmatics. I have asthma as well, and I know to avoid those kinds of things. So you have asthma. So what? Go to the non-smoking section of a restaurant. Ask people not to smoke around you and explain that you have a medical condition. You're all overcomplicating things. The difference between the rights of a smoker (I'm using this word for convenience, but this just means anyone who does drugs by smoking, not specifically tobacco smokers) and someone who hates smokers is that someone who hates smokers can still go to an area where there is no smoke legally while a smoker must always smoke illegally. It's absurd. It's your body, do what you want with it. Just don't tell others what they can and cannot do to themselves... Oh, the driving under the influence bit... It's BS. Irresponsible driving is irresponsible driving. That's not the drug's fault, it's the idiot's choice to drive when high. People who drive when sleep deprived are also putting others at risk, but I don't hear about laws regulating that. How can you punish an entire group for the actions of a couple stupid people? Are you saying that *most* or even a high percentage of people who do drugs also cause car accidents? If so, can you tell me where you got this information from? If not, then we shouldn't really worry about car accidents caused by people on drugs being increased if drugs are legalized, should we? So your argument makes no sense, anyway.... Why would a person who enjoys marijuana *now*, when it's illegal, suddenly begin to cause accidents if it were legalized...? So that it can be made illegal again...? The @$$holes who cause car accidents because they're high are doing it while the drug is still illegal. Obviously banning it didn't work. Keep driving under the influence illegal-- that puts others' safety at risk more seriously than being in the vicinity of a smoker would. But what about the smokers who drive responsibly? Those who don't drive at all? You're kind of implying that driving under the influence is common among smokers, or that they cause more accidents, or something... It's silly. It's also a bit rude for you to think that I only feel this way about drug laws because I know people who do drugs. I don't, just as I didn't know anyone who was gay when I concluded that gay marriage wouldn't hurt anyone and that there's no reason for it to be illegal, either (unless you don't want to see your neighbors being all gay and married-- that would violate your right to live in a strictly heterosexual world, wouldn't it?) I also don't know any prostitutes, but I don't see why prostitution should be illegal either. Actually, the reason I think that drugs should be legalized is that 1) banning drugs barely made a dent in the number of people who do drugs/the ages at which they began doing drugs, so it's pretty much useless, and 2) the prison population in America is ridiculously high and f*cking expensive, even though many inmates aren't guilty of violent crimes-- way too many people are getting arrested because of drugs.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

^ Next time, try not to write a novel. It's really hard to want to read that. Anyway, what happens if the person is allergic to/feels sick when they smell marijuana? Sure, people have a freedom to smoke but if the person requests that they move elsewhere, this shouldn't be an issue. I personally know of a few people who are sensitive to the drug.

Reply
  NoOneLovesYou  |  13

Using your logic, we should also allow child prostitution, because it's the child's right to want to do that to her body. It's not hurting anyone, right? If she WANTS to do it for money, all power to her, right? Just because something is relatively harmless and goes on regardless of the law doesn't mean that it's something to be legalized.

Reply
  saksxalmo  |  20

What LaFemmeQuiRit said. I don't advocate child labor, and prostitution is, in theory, a profession, so why would I advocate children working? Minors (depending on state, but generally anyone under 16) can't consent to sexual activity, anyway. And 166, did you just answer your own question...? I know several people who are severely allergic (just from touching) to peanut butter. I'm still free to enjoy peanut butter, but I don't do it around those specific friends. Those friends avoid peanut butter, and our friends don't have peanut butter when we're around them. Why can't it work the same way for drugs? I realize that it's long, but it's broken up into sections. You can probably skim through them and still get the idea.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

What's the legal age of consent where you're from? Where I'm from, I believe it's 14. 14 year olds are still "children" of a sort; they're youth. Her argument is not shut down.

Reply
  saksxalmo  |  20

Also, 168, if something is relatively harmless, then why should it be made illegal in the first place? It's more harmful to make drugs illegal because it's just filling up our prisons with non-violent inmates.

Reply
  saksxalmo  |  20

It's generally 13 or 14 if the minor is having sex with someone only a few years older than them (so a 14 year old can legally have sex with a 15 year old where I'm from, but a 19 year old who has sex with a 13 year old would be arrested.) In Canada, the age of consent is 16. Regardless, it's still child labor, which is wrong. The "youth" is still not fully responsible for their body. You can also look at prostitution laws all over the world and find that while adult prostitution varies from place to place, every country has laws against child prostitution. A child can't consent, a child shouldn't be working, etc. Adults can consent to sex and are responsible for their own bodies, so there's no real reason that adult prostitution should be illegal.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

In that case, who says OP is an adult and is fully capable of taking care of their own body? I know I wasn't fully capable when I was 14, assuming OP is around that age.

Reply
  Taipan_fml  |  0

@ saksxalmo - whoooaaaa there, what's with the book you just wrote?? Ok, I'll try and see if I can just touch on a couple things without this getting TOO long... First of all, you're bringing up things that do not relate to the issue of marijuana use at all and are not viable comparisons, as the same rules cannot be applied. We're not talking about orange, reproductive rights, gay marriage, peanut butter, or any of that. My point was that they give it to people who are dying anyway, and that for those who aren't there's a possible alternative to smoking, which may eventually cause more health problems. The smell would be coming from the secondhand smoke wafting through my air vents and/or door to the hallway. As we all know, secondhand smoke is bad for you. Why should I have to go outside to avoid breathing in toxins in MY OWN apartment that I'm PAYING for so other people can use illegal drugs in theirs...? What if a woman in the building is pregnant or has children? They are definitely infringing in this scenario. People drive drunk going to and from bars all the time. The number of driving high cases would probably increase were it legal, as there would probably be establishments like bars (but for weed) springing up. Wait... when did I ever bring up the topic of legalization...? I must say though, prostitution as it is now should ABSOLUTELY be illegal. Pimps abuse the hell out of the women working for them and so do the Johns, they can contract and spread STIs, many of these women suffer just as much mentally as physically because of all that abuse and degradation, and that's only naming a few problems.

Reply
  Monia0531  |  0

@Taipan How is an allergy to peanuts different then an allergy to weed? How is disliking the colour orange and disliking the smell of weed different? How is the right of who we want to be with different then what we want to put in our bodies? They are valid comparisons. Um... Medical Marijuana isn't ONLY given to people with terminal issues. I know a few people who are prescribed marijuana as just a pain killer. They are in no way about to die. That was the point about noise complaint versus smell complaint. Apartments can have 'no marijuana' rules along with there 'no noise after 10pm' and 'no smoking cigarettes' rules. If you don't want to be in an apartment with second hand smoke, live in a no smoking apartment. End of story. Then just like alcohol, have DUI for weed. Just because it would legal to smoke it, doesn't mean it would be legal to drive while on it. "-.- And if you're trying to say that legalizing it would just make more people drive while high. I'm guessing the idiots who would are already doing it. ;) If prostitution was legal then it would become a safe, clean, way to make a living. ;) Pimps would be out of a job and prostitution would be regulated. And just for the record, I don't smoke, never plan to, I just think it's ridiculous that the government has banned a plant. "-.-

Reply
  Kaneila0517  |  0

self destructive is a bit harsh. I mean it is legal to smoke cigarettes at 18 which seems more destructive to me than marijuana from what I've read (I don't smoke). but how did the friend get op's pics from her sexual activities anyhow?...

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

Monia - Are you seriously implying that OP, or anyone else for that matter, should have to be bothered to move THEMSELVES away from the problem? Really? I can see that in some circumstances, but it's not always dependent on those who dislike the weed/smoking/whatever to move. Sorry, the onus is on the people DOING the action too.

Reply
  Monia0531  |  0

@5t3ff1k4h That's what people do. If you can't live around pets, you move to a pet free apartment. You need good sleep, you move to an apartment where there are rules regulating loud noises past a certain time. You're allergic to cigarettes, you move to a smoke free apartment. Why should someone have to change for you if you choose to live in such a place without the regulation rules?

Reply
  saksxalmo  |  20

In countries where prostitution is legal, there are often bans against pimps. Prostitution is regulated in may of those countries so that customers and prostitutes don't get diseases, and so that no one gets abused. It sounds like you're arguing against abuse and diseases, not prostitution itself. The thing is, prostitutes are less likely to seek help about these things if they know they're doing something illegal... So legalize it, regulate it, and fix the situation. You claim that just because the number of places where you can buy drugs would increase, the number of intoxicated drivers would increase, but that doesn't make sense. Just because a substance is suddenly legal (and many of the people who would use it if it were may have used it before) does not mean that people will suddenly stop caring about the safety of other humans! Do you really think that people who genuinely enjoy drugs would be so careless as to do something like driving intoxicated that would likely make those drugs banned again? Again, liquor is legal. Someone who is so stupid as to drive intoxicated could just as easily do so with alcohol *or* ILLEGAL drugs.... And smoking tobacco is legal as well. Some buildings have rules saying that you can't smoke in the building for that reason. The same could, in theory, apply to drugs as well. Do you live in an apartment with no tobacco smokers and are only able to imagine this kind of situation occurring amongst drug smokers or something? Think outside the box! There's more than one solution for these "problems," and plenty of them don't involve prohibition (because that worked out so well!) Also, secondhand smoking is statistically ridiculous. I'm sorry if DARE taught you otherwise, but it only noticeably increases risks of lung disease if you're surrounded by it for long periods of time (like flight attendants in the '50s who were in a small, closed space with smokers for hours a day.) Even then, the risks are only slightly higher. And this is specifically tobacco smoke, which is generally understood to be more dangerous than marijuana (look at smoke exposure differences between marijuana and tobacco, rates of chronic illnesses, heart problems, etc.) In short, all the "pregnant lady" with poor ventilation would need to do is 1) complain to the neighbor/landlord or 2) open a friggin' window. She would not get her baby high because a guy down the hall was smoking weed... This concept could be equally used with tobacco smokers, anyway, so why are you writing as though weed smokers pose a greater threat to poor pregnant women than tobacco smokers or... people who enjoy alcohol...? Again, the bit about medical marijuana is kind of irrelevant because like someone else said, not everyone who smokes medical marijuana is on the verge of dying. Some cancer patients take it to avoid nausea after chemotherapy, but they aren't necessarily on the verge of dying. I hope you at least support medical marijuana use, but I guess that's a different argument. I also don't think that comparing my preferences or my friends' allergies to yours is incorrect. You can't simply say "they're different." Double standard...? In summary, prohibition didn't work in the '20s (it kind of made things worse, what with all the gangsters,) and it's not working now. The end.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

205 - The same thing applies to the rest of the community. Why should we have to change because we don't like something? You're the ones doing it. People still smoke in smoke-free apartments. People still smoke around me even though I don't like it. If there's no way for me to change (i.e. I'm not able to get up and leave/move for whatever reason... being in a car is a good example) the people doing the action should have enough respect to change what they're doing. THOSE are the situations I was referring to.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

207 - Please stop writing novels... Make your point and be done with it. I'm active in this thread and the length is starting to really annoy me. You mentioned prohibition not working. Well, while that's true, what's the harm in getting rid of something we ALL know to be dangerous - cigarettes? Sure, people will be cranky until they're through the withdrawal stage, but they'll be fine and certainly much healthier once they stop. We all know it CAN lead to cancer, and the only reason most people do it is to relax. There are other things you can do that will have the same effect, and turn out to be healthier. Prohibition didn't work because many people disagreed on whether alcohol was bad. It's more likely people will agree that cigarettes are bad because we've all seen the damage it can do (not that alcohol can't do damage... but that's why laws are enforced). Please don't preach to us that secondhand smoke doesn't do anything to us. I feel bad for those who knew someone who died from secondhand smoke. You're just being ignorant. You used the pregnant woman example, so let's go with that. In the middle of the winter she's not going to necessarily want to open a window just because some asshole's been smoking all day. Some people have asshole landlords as well, so maybe the landlord doesn't care enough to do anything for her despite the fact it's the right thing to do. Personally, I don't believe there's enough research/evidence to prove that weed DOES NOT have the same effects as tobacco smoke. Smoke is smoke. If your friends are allergic to peanut butter, that's fine. They know to stay away, and here's the kicker: the people who eat peanut butter know to keep it away from her. How does this apply to say, an allergy to weed? Not only does the person who is allergic need to stay away, the people around her need to respect her enough to not do it around her. It's the same idea. I apologize for my length... I feel like a slight hypocrite. But I wasn't repeating my points over and over again like some people.

Reply
  Monia0531  |  0

No no no. This is a discussion of preference on your part (Not completely, but it's the only argument I've read brought up) . On the defenders side it's a discussion of the rights to do what we want with our own bodies. That's your business to discuss with land lords or the person you are driving with. If they're smoking in a smoke-free apartment then you can get evicted. If someone is smoking, contact your landlord. Yes, It's up to the people to change what they are doing if you make it clear it bothers in you in those situations, but that doesn't mean that it should be illegal to even posses. Marijuana should be treated the same as cigarettes. That's my opinion. It's a plant and it is less harmful the alcohol or cigarettes.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

220 - I must have misread then. I had an assignment to do on the Middle East and the banning of caffeine came up, but maybe I misread it/misinterpreted the context. Good to know, though. Monia - I didn't say anything SHOULD be illegal, though I was trying to point out that I see no harm in making something illegal if most people agree that should be so. I am not against the fact that cigarettes are legal, so we're clear. Sorry if that's how my comment came across; I was trying to use a hypothetical example most of us can relate to as many of us still can't relate to weed (having not been around it, never used it, etc).

Reply
  Taipan_fml  |  0

saksxalmo - I'm not sure how they make it so diseases can't be spread through prostitution, but if it's simply through condom use there are STIs (such as HPV) that can be spread even if you use one. There are also STIs that show no symptoms and men can just be carriers (without symptoms) and pass it on. My argument was that those things usually go hand-in-hand with prostitution. You have an overly-optimistic view of people if you think that they will all refuse to drive after doing drugs simply because they're worried about harming others. Hate to be the one to tell you, but people do and will continue to do so, just like people who drink and go to bars. There's always those who are willing to take the risk and ruin something for everyone else. Those of us who choose not to use potentially harmful substances shouldn't have to work around those who do. It's them who should work around us. Any secondhand smoke, even from your precious marijuana, is a carcinogen and can harm those who breathe it in. As for the pregnant mother or children living in the building, they are still developing and are more susceptible to the smoke's harmful effects (whether or not it's strong enough to give them a secondhand high). And I'm focusing on marijuana because for the moment, it's an illegal drug that shouldn't be there in the first place, though cigarettes aren't much better in my opinion (cigs don't really get you high, however). YOU sound like you just don't care who's getting harmed, even children, as long as druggies are free to get high. Physicians have noted that although smoking medical marijuana has its benefits (no, the patients aren't ALL on the verge of death), they'd prefer a different system of delivery than smoking because that can just cause more health problems. There's also a synthetic alternative to actual marijuana. An allergy to peanuts is not the same because that's an allergy while pretty much everyone is negatively affected by smoking (firsthand or secondhand, and this is not necessarily an "allergy"). Seeing the color orange will not do this. Again, gay marriage damages the health of no one and smoking marijuana can, even if it's not the person smoking it. Sorry for the long responses everybody. saksxalmo, your novels make it difficult to keep it short.

Reply
  angrynegro7  |  16

@24- OP's friend is a dickhead, because he did what he did for revenge. It's one thing if the OP was a coke addicted nympho, having wild orgies and drug binges, and her friend told her parents, out of concern for her well being. That's not what happened, is it? He ratted her out because he got pissy at her for teasing him about his drunken little quirk. Now, if OP went around telling everybody and their mother about what he did when he got drunk, then an argument could be made that he had a right to get back at her that way. All she did was text HIM throughout the day. The fact that he also had photographic evidence makes him look like a creeper.

Reply
  Monia0531  |  0

5t3ff - I thought that's what we were arguing? And there is a harm because it's taking away the right that a person has over there own body. Even if it is the lesser of the population. There are no real arguments why it should be illegal because it is the same idea as tobacco. That's why I was using the cigarettes as an example. It's the same thing. Cigs have smoke, an unpleasant smell, and can cause allergies. How is weed different from Cigarettes? (Other then the obvious 'It gets you high' argument which is actually a lot safer then alcohol's drunk.) Tiapan - If prostitution was legal there would be A LOT less STD's and STI's then there are now. Because it is illegal, nothing can be controlled. Pimps take advantage of the girls and don't care about the diseases they get. If it was legal, it would be government regulated, therefore making pimps extinct and enforcing condom use rules. And even if STI's can be transferred through a condom, prostitutes would have medical to cover there suffering, plus it's a job risk. Every job has them and if a prostitute enters the line of work knowing that is a possibility I see no problem with it. Just like I know that working at McDonlad's (Not that I do) could burn my hand's skin off in the hot oil. ;) People who would do drugs and drive when they're legal, are already doing it now. I won't say that people won't because people are idiots. But honestly, driving high would be safer then drunk. Not saying people should do either. Then that pregnant mother should move to a smoke free apartment or contact her landlord if it already is. I understand how smokers should work around none smokers, but I don't understand why that should make it illegal altogether. It's not that it doesn't matter who get's harmed, it's a matter of the rights we have to put what we want in our bodies. There are other ways of using marijuana. Google Medical Marijuana stores. There are drinks, pills, candy ect. I'm not sure if this was you or someone else but someone at the top specifically said that there are people allergic to smoke and that's why it should be illegal. It wasn't a reference to everyone's harmful effects, just that argument given. The colour reference was to the fact the someone said that they didn't like the smell of marijuana, therefore it should be illegal. And the gay marriage reference was to aid our arguments of the rights of what we want to do with our bodies. You have to think if them in those contexts as that is why saksxalmo called it a double standard.

Reply
  5t3ff1k4h  |  42

I don't recall anyone saying it should be illegal simply because a person doesn't like the smell. There are other reasons why it should be illegal, but since in most places it is, who cares? Who says things like tobacco and/or alcohol shouldn't be made illegal? I don't particularly care to scroll up and read all of the messages again... I was trying to make you see that there's another side to the story. I may respond later when I can focus... this afternoon I'm not faring too well in that department.

Reply
  Taipan_fml  |  0

Monia - Exactly... weed gets you high and is a drug (not that I support cigs either). It isn't necessarily "better" to drive high than drunk. It does impair reaction time and tracking. Just because stoned drivers tend to drive slower, doesn't make it any less dangerous. Ever see a line of traffic almost run over a super slow driver on the interstate, then have to swerve to avoid them...? So basically you're saying if prostitution were legal, there'd be just as much risk of catching AND SPREADING AROUND infections, but it's ok because it's a "job risk" and, oh goody, taxpayers' money could be used to cover their medical?? No thank you. Yeah... we're talking about how things are NOW in the apartment situation, not "were it legal". And the mother shouldn't have to move from her home if others in the building are choosing to use a substance that is illegal at this time. I still feel like you all believe that "the right to put whatever we want in our bodies" trumps the right to NOT have others put them there for us by using those substances nearby. That's what I just said... physicians would prefer it not be smoked. Or there's a synthetic alternative. Again... smelling the weed usually means inhaling secondhand smoke, which is bad for you. Orange is not bad for you, merely an annoyance. Gay marriage would also merely be an annoyance that does not affect the health of someone within close proximity who doesn't support it.

Loading data…