By junkie - Belgium - Antwerp
Today, I hid my weed stash in a bag from an expensive jewellery store. My sister walked into my room, went "Ooh, what's this?" and grabbed the bag. I grabbed it back and ad-libbed that it was her Christmas gift. Now I actually have to buy her expensive jewellery. FML
Add a comment
You must be logged in to be able to post comments!
Create my account Sign in
Top comments
  lamdat5r  |  10

True story.

  NeatNit  |  32

I actually experienced a much more interesting moral.
"Today, I hid my weed stash..."
heh, he probably got a ton of YDIs for that
*look down*
*keep reading*
Oh. Well, you deserve that one!


On the sixth day of Christmas I received some jewelry while.. 6 police sirens, 5 hounds barking, 4 strange illusions, 3 cops unwrapping, 2 parents screaming and my high sister with some weed. No? I crawl back into my cave.

  quontag  |  15

You could buy from the cheap shop next door and say they ran out of bags and they used ones from the jewelry store. That happened to my father. The grocery store ran out of bags so they used a victoria's secret bag.

  X_Codes  |  11

@55 - A discount clothing store shopping bag would be better. If I had to choose whether to snoop a K-Mart bag or a Victoria's Secret bag...

  fugger973  |  5

96 you are a fucking moron. 90% of the most successful people ever to live used to do way harder drugs than pot. let me just start with one: steve jobs was on acid during most of the early stages of apple

  doctorhook86  |  24

176: You are a fucking moron. 90% of statistics are bullshit. Let me just start with one: even if most successful people have used hard drugs, that doesn't mean most people who use hard drugs are successful. So what's your point?

  fugger973  |  5

i never said it was a hard drug. thats why i said they do way harder drugs. and i was just giving straight facts from the life of a very successful billionaire. also never said that every person who does drugs is successful. read before you try ro argue

By  mbpoland  |  5

Too many negative votes, comment buried. Show the comment

  QWERTYrage  |  3

Understandable, because she broke the law, but I see criminals as people who rob, steal, kill, and so forth. Her "crime" is victimless, therefore, I don't think she's a criminal.

  charvisioku  |  22

57: More things could go wrong which end up victimising someone else if OP got drunk. You lose a lot more control under the influence of alcohol than you do when you're high. Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it's inherently and undeniably wrong. Homosexuality was illegal at one point. So was alcohol for that matter.
The law does not dictate universal morality.

  Sputnikspak  |  13

I have heard cops and ambulance technicians alike say that they would vastly prefer to deal with someone who is high on pot than someone who is drunk - even behind the wheel of a car. Way more people are killed by drunk drivers than drivers who smoke pot. Other drugs? That could be worse than being drunk. But I know a pothead who just graduated from Honours Chemistry at one of the most prestigious universities in the country, with the highest marks in her class. Seriously? You have to smoke a LOT of pot for it to mess with you that much.


I'm gonna point out only one thing that everybody who compares being to high to being on other stuff always leaves out: it's still has harmful effects on others. Just because ambulance drivers, cops, House, whoever says they'd rather deal with high people than drunks, I'm sure as hell they would love to have deal with neither of them. It's basically asking them to pick their poison; doesn't mean it makes it 'harmless' just because it's slightly better than being drunk. Just like being inebriated, I don't see a problem with it when people do it at their house, or if they have a designated driver, like when you'd go out for a drink.


116, well of course driving under the influence of any inebriating substance should be illegal, because that's dangerous to innocent people on the roads. That's not the point; the point was comparing alcohol and marijuana to show how the law isn't really logical.

  etchsanity1  |  11

128/129 you should probably pretend you don't smoke "you've never smoke" isn't winning the pot argument any points. That said I don't smoke but many of my friends do its just the modern prohibition, several places are working at legalizing it worldwide

  mcrptv  |  17

You're picture is green day billie joe sold drugs he took pot and his band is named after a drug taking meet up (he is still totally awesome though)

  guitarbeast  |  22

It is fine unless you're driving under the influence, in a room full of children and also unfortunately it's not fine in the eyes of the law (in most places)

  s7evin  |  12

@99 fyi: there are plenty of people who don't drink or smoke! I hate it when people like you just assume "everybody does it at least once". I personally never have & never will! Think before you say something stupid.


Smoking and drinking kill more people than cannabis and ruin more lives. Still there choice to do it so don't think you have the right to tell people what to do they can make their own minds up about drugs without feeling like there evil and failures when most are the complete opposite. And its legal in Belgium.

  SoSickWithIt  |  14

So because the government says something is illegal, that makes the people who partake in tetrahydrocannabinol usage makes them;
1.) immoral
2.) a druggy
3.) an inferior person
Step back a second and research what value THC has, then say that. I don't believe anyone who has actual knowledge of its effects both positive/negative can say that. And a little other thing most commonly known as censorship, the government doesn't want THC to be legal, because how else would the characterize the massive amounts of funding for the programs that go to the different 'agencies' that try and eradicate the plant.
It's a plant ffs. Has anyone ever smoked a jay, and gone home and beat the hell out of their spouse? Negative. If anything, the only negative aspect of the drug, is when smoked, the actual smoke is harmful, not the drug. Yet, it's not addictive, but billions of dollars are spent in ads throughout the world that's associated with cancer, tobacco, and its addictive ingredient - nicotine. Yet, why isn't someone who smokes a cigarette incarcerated for being a druggy? Because its all what people have been told and spoon fed to believe, and the problem is people actually think they're getting facts. It's untrue, very untrue.

  lukemack  |  4

To 196- no offence your an idiot weed has a lot of bad long term effects plus you are 5 times more likely to get cancer from it plus it is very addictive both my sisters are pot heads I can't even have a conversation with them because it just doesn't process. And I'm not saying alcohol or smokes are much better.

  summerguy97  |  16

196, the coca tree is also a plant so a chemical that comes from it couldn't be harmful, huh? What about poppies? I'm pro cannabis, but you are making to big a generalization. For plants.