Slashdot Mirror
Sean Parker Contributes $9 Million As States Push To Legalize Marijuana (gazettenet.com)
Sean Parker has now donated nearly $9 million in his effort to legalize marijuana in California. An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Billboard:
Whether it's founding Napster, guiding Facebook or investing in Spotify, Sean Parker has developed a reputation for pushing change forward, and now he's at the forefront of California's marijuana legalization movement... [A] competing proposal from the Coalition for Cannabis Policy Reform was folded into Parker's, making his the leading ballot measure, by default, for 2016 in a state with the largest medical marijuana market in the country.
The U.S currently has a hodgepodge of legislation, with marijuana entirely legal only in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, as well as in the District of Columbia, and in individual cities in Michigan and Maine. But with five more states now voting on legalization, pro-marijuana campaign ads are being broadcast in Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, California and Arizona. ("You decide who wins -- criminals and cartels, or Arizona schools?") And meanwhile, Slashdot reader schwit1 has identified one voter who's definitely opposing police efforts to hunt down marijuana growers: All that remains of the solitary marijuana plant an 81-year-old grandmother had been growing behind her South Amherst home is a stump and a ragged hole in the ground... Tucked away in a raspberry patch and separated by a fence from any neighbors, the [medicinal] plant was nearly ready for harvest when a military-style helicopter and police descended on Sept. 21...
The U.S currently has a hodgepodge of legislation, with marijuana entirely legal only in Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, as well as in the District of Columbia, and in individual cities in Michigan and Maine. But with five more states now voting on legalization, pro-marijuana campaign ads are being broadcast in Massachusetts, Maine, Nevada, California and Arizona. ("You decide who wins -- criminals and cartels, or Arizona schools?") And meanwhile, Slashdot reader schwit1 has identified one voter who's definitely opposing police efforts to hunt down marijuana growers: All that remains of the solitary marijuana plant an 81-year-old grandmother had been growing behind her South Amherst home is a stump and a ragged hole in the ground... Tucked away in a raspberry patch and separated by a fence from any neighbors, the [medicinal] plant was nearly ready for harvest when a military-style helicopter and police descended on Sept. 21...
As my username suggests, this news be dank! The sooner we take a leg out of the narco/DEA racket the better.
Oh wait.. nevermind, we like his position. Money in politics is good again.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I am all for legalizing it.The issue I have is that people buy the laws. Because that way you end up in a pissing contest where only the rich decide what becomes law.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
When we were growing up, it was all dope to our parents and probably misleadingly associated with the same risk assessment. It seems clear, even to the opponents of legalization, that this is not the case.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
He's putting his money where his mouth is.
However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed. The notion that schools will benefit immensely seems to be a slightly more realistic version of the old claim that legalized sale of pot would generate $599 godzillion in tax revenue per picosecond to the end of eternity. The problem with either claim is that it assumes that legalization would cause people to want to buy at retail what they and their friends could grow in their backyard.
(there are other dishonest claims from the pro-pot camp but this one directly ties to the summary)
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Your ignorant meme notwithstanding, a vast number of the most successful folks out know under seventy (obviously a generational thing) smoke weed at least occasionally. I'm not at all surprised that you're unaware of this.
If you read it without the "out now," it makes more sense... :)
Wake me up when a state actually means legalize when they say legalize, as in you could grow it yourself. From everything I've seen what they mean when they say legalize is to decriminalize it's use and build/protect an industry. I'm OK with the first part the second part is really kinda disgusting.
Phase two after decriminalization never seems to be legalization, what it ends up being is a bunch of people swooping in to corner the grow/supply market and once they are in place they tend to lobby for laws that make it that much harder for competition to move in. Even if that perceived competition is the average citizen growing their own marijuana for personal use.
to legislate against stupid. Marijuana is for burnouts.
Yeah, so the obvious thing to do would be to put them in prison and ruin their lives.
We wouldn't want them wasting their lives, now would we?
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I think that marijuana is going to be the sequel to tobacco. Smoking different stuff isn't healthier. Around the 2030s we will probably see lung cancer and throat cancer go up again along with everything else as the second anti-smoking campaign begins. Or, you know, we could just try to stop it now.
How is this related to slashdot? There's not even a cursory connection to tech/science.
Sean Parker, a tech entrepreneur, is investing in bringing our drug laws closer to sanity. I'd say that qualifies as a cursory connection.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
How is it not a violation of the Possee Commitatus Act to use National Guard units for policing actions?
There won't be any real progress till it's decriminalized at the federal level. Till then, banks won't get involved fearing account forfeitures and asset freezing - which can happen any time. Once it it's decriminalized however, there will be enormous and swift changes. Big tobacco will swoop in with billions and develop the supply chain, profit and squeeze out or buy up local growers and dispensaries.
So now asking that police follow the law is "escalating"?
The schedule I status needs to go. Certain chemicals in marijuana have shown themselves to be the best treatment for specific kinds of seizures, far better than anything currently available, to say nothing of the myriad of other uses. The evidence it has some medical value is insurmountable and being schedule I prevents much of the research that could be helping people while ensuring that grandma gets the full swat experience.
Getting a realistic categorization based on facts and not propaganda will help to pave the way for legalizing it on the federal level.
I don't care what people do as long as I don't have to pay for it. My primary objection is that I find many people to be adequately stupid without chemically exacerbating the situation.
Well, you're currently paying to incarcerate these people. So get on board.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Hyperbole much?
Many people don't know who Sean Parker is.
Some people don't even remember what Napster is anymore. C'mon. One sentence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
FTFY.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You know, I sort of hope you don't smoke weed, because otherwise you're not doing your argument any favors. You wrote a sentence that made no sense, then your correction isn't even correct. You didn't write "out now", you wrote "out know".
.... he's obviously had one joint two many ... oh weight
"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"
For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".
And for "potheads" read "about half of Americans".
Not that I'm pro-pothead, necessarily, because I've known my share, and so I can safely say that I like people way better when they aren't high. But continuing to outlaw an activity that 150 million people support seems kind of dumb, not to mention a failure of democracy. See: Prohibition.
This is exactly how the new "people for the people" democracy works: Wealthy people or corporations use money in bribes to influence legislature bypassing unbiased education and disclosures of facts for voters.
More than half of the coders and engineers I know use cannabis at least once in awhile.
The alcohol lobby does not want the recreational use competing against their alcohol sales and the pharmaceutical lobby does not want the medicinal use competing against their drug sales.
So much for a free market.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So you don't drink any alcohol then do you? If you want to talk drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are 1000s of times worse for your body than any amount of weed. There is no reason at all that marijuana should be treated any differently than alcohol or tobacco. You are just spouting off a stereotype and nothing else.
You'd be surprised at how many very productive people smoke weed and I'm no talking about artists or musicians either. I'm talking about CEOS and other very powerful people.
It is impossible to OD on weed. Try drinking 2 gallons of alcohol and get back to me if you live. I'll eat 2 pounds worth of edibles and smoke 2 pounds if that was even possible and report my findings. Oh I'll be alive and 100% sober a few hours after I'm done.
I don't see anyone reaching for willow bark when they have a headache.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed.
Agreed. My beef with them is the whole "medical marijuana" movement. I don't have a problem with people smoking pot as long as no one gets hurt. I think it is a stupid thing to do but it's clearly less harmful than lots of other perfectly legal activities. I also don't have a problem with people using pot to treat legitimate medical conditions provided there is actual scientific (not anecdotal) trials evidence of efficacy for the condition. There seems to be clear evidence that pot can be a useful treatment in some rare cases. Key word there is "rare".
What I have a problem with is people falsely claiming medical conditions in vast numbers in order to get legal cover to use pot when they clearly have no actual medical condition. This describes the VAST majority of pot users. I have a huge problem with making policy based on lies. That's how pot got illegal in the first place. It irritates me that pot proponents think I'm stupid enough to believe transparently false stories that only pot can cure whatever made up ailment they have. They want to get high and they should own that fact. I see it as no worse (and probably safer) than someone drinking beer to get a buzz. If someone wants to get high and can do so responsibly without hurting anyone else I don't see that as a problem. Just don't pretend I'm dumb enough to believe that most pot users happen to suffer from rare medical conditions that only pot can treat. Go ahead and get it legalized and drop the ridiculous "medical marijuana" nonsense.
Or, you know, I had just woken up moments before and my eyes were too blurry with sleep to navigate the stupid-ass autocorrect on my phone... ;)
Oh, and for what it's worth: I am neither the stoner-type nor am I all that successful; I'm not sure what that implies... :)
"bringing our drug laws closer to sanity"
For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".
Ah look, another stranger on the Internet who thinks he knows me.
Full disclosure: I smoke pot. Fuller disclosure: I do so with minimal risk and without the attention of police. You know why? I'm white and upper middle class. I am a senior systems admin at a global company, make a professional salary, drive a nice car and live in a nice apartment. I have good, quality relationships with my friends and family. I exercise and watch what I eat.
As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". But this is the Internet and I could be a dog for all you know. So it's really neither here nor there. No, the real reason I want marijuana legalized is so we can stop wasting lives and resources by locking people up for smoking it. By the logic of our current policy, society would be better served by putting me in prison rather than leaving me free to help run a large computer network for a productive company. But as I said, I am discreet and do not fear arrest, so this isn't about me. My concern is for those whose skin color or socioeconomic status prevent them from enjoying the freedom I do. We ruin their lives, waste our resources and have very little to show for it. It's stupid, whether or not you think pot is okay to smoke pot. Our current policy has nothing to do with taking care of people or helping them stop using pot, and everything to do with punishing them and making them unemployable. Like I said, stupid. Way more stupid than smoking pot could ever be.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
You don't smoke weed and code?
Somebody around here sure the hell does.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
In a world where the majority of people have tried or at least smoke occasionally it's easy to expect a subset of people to also have a majority whether it's successful people or unsuccessful people. Don't reach for straws.
For sanity read: "The way potheads like me want them to be so we can buy and smoke our sorry little losers narcotic without being bothered by the police".
I'll read what he wrote, thanks all the same. Uptight weirdos like you notwithstanding, everyone with a shred of sense knows that mary jane is demonstrably less harmful, both to the individual and to society, than alcohol. Hypocrisy seems to be a virtue nowadays eh.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
And while they're in prison they're exempt from the 13th amendment barring slavery. There are actually more legal slaves in the USA now than there were when slavery was abolished in the 1800s.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You do realize that even being "all over it" wouldn't get them the same margins as the drug and alcohol sales they would lose, as pot doesn't just add to all sales, it replaces some sales?
You do realize that pot is an easily-grown weed, and a lot easier and less complicated to grow on your sun-porch than making something like beer or wine is?
You do realize that anyone having a few plants in the house or garden would be a lot less likely to buy "professionally produced" pot?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I don't understand why people don't see that trying to curtail the supply of drugs and locking people up doesn't work. You're never going to convince people who use drugs that they shouldn't. Look how hard it is to get the hardcore cigarette smokers to quit -- our state has the highest tobacco tax in the country, and you basically can't smoke anywhere anymore, and there is still a cohort of people who will do it until they die. It's way less than it was in, say, the 50s where absolutely everyone smoked, but it's there and keeps the cigarette makers employed.
I think the entire war on drugs should just be dropped. I've never done anything in my life (OK, alcohol, but that's legal.) And even though I'm not a user, I think the overall cost of drugs in society would go way down if everyone had easy access to safe, cheap sources with no questions asked. Imagine being able to go into a pharmacy to get painkillers -- people wouldn't have to resort to heroin. Overdose incidents would also go way down because users would know what they're getting -- this is a major driver to the "opioid crisis" where inexperienced users OD because they were given a dose they weren't used to...it's not like dealers are testing the concentration of their product.
If enforcement just stopped, and supply were regulated and made available to everyone who wanted it, the crime surrounding drug use would drop to zero, which is what most people who don't have a moral problem with it are upset about. The other thing I think this would help is the upcoming mass-unemployment event that's going to come from automation of all jobs. As a society, do we really want 90% of the population unemployed with nothing to do, or should we give them something to do that's cheap and keeps them out of trouble if they choose?
I do believe in my heart of hearts that you have some habits that are a lot sadder than smoking weed.
$9M? That'll barely get you a cheap house in Beverly Hills.
That crap fucking stinks. Like we hadn't enough stink from the tobacco smokers already.
Yeah, you're right. We should keep putting people in prison so you don't have to smell something unpleasant.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
"As you can see, I am not a "sorry little loser". "
So you say. More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.
Yes, as I said, I could be making the whole thing up. I might not even smoke pot! But I have nothing to prove to you, so you can think what you like of me.
"We ruin their lives,"
They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.
Not too strong in the logic department, eh? It's not the weed smoking that's ruining their lives; it's the punishments of prohibition that do that. The question is not whether or not they will go to jail of caught smoking weed. The question is whether or not that is proper. I maintain that it is not proper. We ruin their lives, over and above the effects of pot smoking, by putting them in prison and a felony on their record. That doesn't help anyone, not even you. It is quite clear that the war on drugs has failed at its stated goal of eliminating drug use. It hasn't even reduced it by any measurable degree. It is a waste of money, lives, time and resources. It should be ended.
You will go right ahead thinking that pot smokers are all worthless burnouts. I cannot disabuse you of that notion. But the failure of prohibition is a fact, not an opinion. It's time to stop locking people up for non-violent, victimless "crimes".
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
what you're saying is so flagrantly at odds with reality that making sense of it requires invention. Private citizens are not competition for large growing operations
That invention is so old its patent has expired several times over. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
...I can safely say that I like people way better when they aren't high.
Agreed, but if I had to choose, I like people who are high way better than people who are drunk. I used to be on the fence about this issue because I have seen first-hand how excessive pot use can ruin people. But the same can be said of alcohol and many/most other things that humans consume for pleasure.
I think the biggest driver for anti-pot legal enforcement is/was the privatization of prisons. It would not shock me to hear that private prison companies lobbied hard to push for mandatory incarceration for recreational pot use; probably also jaywalkers and those who spit on the sidewalk.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Out of interest, do you think drinking alcohol is a stupid thing to do?
Without putting too fine a point on it, as a general proposition yes I do think drinking alcohol is a stupid thing to do. Usually harmless but not rational or a smart thing to do. There are some pretty tragic downsides to drinking recreationally and the only meaningful up side is that it apparently makes people feel good. I don't really see much benefit in taking drugs that make you stupid, clumsy, and potentially a danger to others no matter how good they taste or how good they make you feel. If people could be trusted to drink only occasionally and in moderation and only when safe then it would be a harmless non-issue but that's not the reality we live in. Same thing with pot. If people wanted to smoke a joint now and then on their own time to blow off some steam nobody should care. Under those conditions it's dumb but relatively harmless. If someone wants to have a single glass of wine with dinner and doesn't have to drive anywhere who cares? Again dumb but harmless.
Pain is pain, and when you can mediate it people live a bit better with it. Unless of course you believe that 'pain' is a 'nonsense medical condition', but I can tell you the medical community doesn't think so based upon how many people are being medicated for it.
There are numerous and demonstrably effective treatments for pain which are perfectly legal. The use of pot "to treat pain" is a really nice way to pretend you have a condition when you don't since it isn't provable with current technology. I have seen no evidence that most if not all pot users would not be equally or better treated with other medicines if they genuinely are experiencing physical pain. Let's be frank. The number of people with medical marijuana cards hugely exceeds the number of people who reasonably could be likely to have genuine medical conditions requiring treatment with pot smoking even under the most generous of assumptions. It's a transparent white lie to get around the legal system. Nothing more.
People want to smoke pot because they like how it makes them feel. They are willing to bend some laws to facilitate this. Let's not pretend that most pot smokers are in any way, shape, or form using the drug to treat real medical conditions. I don't care if they do smoke pot so long as it doesn't harm anyone but don't pretend I'm dumb enough to believe such nonsensical arguments.
For a moment, I thought the article was referring to Sean Murray. Now *THAT* would explain a lot.
Nothing new for us Alaskans. Been legal for decades... aka statehood ...
I do not respond to trolls (AKA Anonymous Cowards)
If you look at who is against it - it's mostly law enforcement and people who want to keep the broken system going.
I doubt it will pass, but if it does, it should be interesting to see what the DEA does when people can legally grow X amount of plants but still not allowed at the federal level.
You can see what they are doing now. Colorado, Oregon, Washington and Alaska all allow private cultivation. The Feds are basically quietly doing nothing.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
No, but the subject of this discussion is the support of the legalization of marijuana. I'm not sure how liking or disliking the smell enters into it
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
I assist some young people in need, and I've often been asked about weed.
My answer hasn't changed in decades:
The worst thing about cannabis is that it's still illegal, and getting caught by the law could irrevocably alter your life in a very bad way. Be very careful.
But in good conscience, I can't condone or promote it.
A good tool in the wrong hands can kill as easily as heal.
The above is utter bullshit.
That may well be true but none of the hot air you followed with even remotely backs-up your claim. Parent: 1; You: zilch
They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.
Smoking weed may make them unmotivated or spacey, but at its worst will do nothing close to the harm to their lives that arrest, incarceration, and a felony on their record will do. Further, just like there's a difference between hardcore alcoholics and people who enjoy a beer every now and then, not everybody who smokes post is stoned every waking moment of their lives.
Full disclosure: I don't smoke pot, but I know people who do. You sound like the sort of person who would be surprised to learn who around you smokes pot, though they'd likely never tell you. You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Sean Parker is only doing this for his own self-interest. He has investing heavily in the burgeoning California marijuana industry on the hopes that legalization will happen.
So let's see this as it is, another wealthy capitalist bent on becoming even wealthier,,,
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
justify your sad little habit.
That's interesting. As someone who lives in the Netherlands I see nothing sad about people enjoying a recreational joint. Now there are a myriad of other legal activities that have people circling down the hellhole into a decrepit state of anti-social welfare dependence, but we don't criminalise those either.
More than likely you're a functioning pothead just holding on like a lot of functioning alcoholics. And the common trait of both is that neither recognise they have a problem.
I've smoked marijuana before. Can't say I liked it all that much, or that I think it was very addictive. It certainly never turned me into a dangerous asshole like alcohol does with a lot of people. I do have a problem with nicotine and caffeine though. They don't turn me into a dangerous asshole either. An extremely strong argument can be made that alcohol and nicotine are both far more dangerous than marijuana. They are legal, while marijuana is not only illegal, it is a schedule 1 drug but has demonstrable medical value and is blatantly safer than alcohol. Whatever society gains by preventing a certain number of people from turning into potheads, it loses by transforming otherwise productive members of the community into criminals, militarizes the police, and puts a large financial burden on the tax payers to imprison and capture users. It's stupid, pot is not worth all the effort.
Thats just a number you plucked out your backside
http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://prospect.org/article/ma...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
There you go. There's three references. One a university study, one from a polling company, and one from a government organisation. Those were just the first 3 links on Google in order. Let me know how far down you get before you find one that suits your agenda.
I have written some of my best code while high, although later I have to clean it up by changing function names from things like 'manthesedoritostastegood' to something more professional.
Colorado resident here. I will just go ahead and confirm that that doesn't matter. There are stores that openly sell it, and people opening smoke it on their patios.
I should add, though, that it clearly depends on the individual and the reason(s) why they smoke (and a ton of other factors as well). All of those people I mentioned were highly intelligent but I can't speculate as to whether or not pot use might be a good idea for someone whose brain doesn't function that well to begin with, or for those who've been conditioned to believe that "pot is bad" and "it leads to even more destructive behavior" which is obviously a self-fulfilling prophecy for many...
What straws am I grasping at? I only offer my subjective observation, which is to say that while I don't dispute that a majority of "pot heads" are likely unsuccessful (and perhaps even dysfunctional, although I'd argue that also applies to most people in general), an overwhelming majority of the relatively successful and/or productive people I've known from do consume the stuff and I'm sure there are many others who've observed the same.
I offer no explanations, pr0fessor; that's clearly for "geniuses" like yourself. ;)
Everyone I know who is successful also wear blue jeans at least on occasion but you can't attribute success or lack of success to the wearing of blue jeans or to an argument that blue jeans cause a lack of success. Same with smoking...
You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.
Brilliant! :)
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
You should consider following post prohibition and NOT Colorado's model. Colorado allows for retailers to grow the plant locally. Basically, it is creating localized monopolies that grew relatively small amounts of weed, so to increase sales, they sell to out of state or sell the store to those with drug-lords/gang connections. And yes, Colorado has that.
BUT, if you require a clean separation of wholesaler vs retailer, you avoid the local monopoly of better weed, AND will likely see competition drive down prices quickly. In addition, if you only monitor say 300 wholesalers vs 2000 stores, it is easier and cheaper.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Until all states have legalized it AND are growing their own, it makes little sense to do schedule 1. Once schedule 1 is changed, then anybody can sell their pot to America. China and Drug lords WILL DUMP on America.
And to be fair, the pot that Colorado grows is top notch. So, if they wish to remain that way AND to have lots of future business, they need to allow legalization at state level only, but stop it at the federal level. Can't export out of the state, BUT, neither can it be legally imported.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
In Washington DC you can legally use marijuana in the home only. You can grow 2 plants (I think it's 2)
Here in Oregon, it is 4 plants per person (though technically, I think they meant 4 per household). Although that doesn't really get enforced in the Eastern half of the state here, 4 is really enough once you know what you are doing. Once you get your growing and cultivating techniques down, a 4 plant harvest can conceivably provide enough bud to last an individual or small family a year, and perhaps even give the grower some significant "influence" in the growing C-G-A* based economies.
* Cash-Grass-Ass
This space unintentionally left blank.
The number who would support legalising it is not the same as the number who smoke it.
"As someone who lives in the Netherlands I see nothing sad about people enjoying a recreational joint."
You probably also see nothing sad about whores standing in a shop window either.
You're right, the number who actually smoke it is much higher.
You probably also see nothing sad about whores standing in a shop window either.
Not at all. The only thing sad is they probably make more money than you do.
Can't say I'm surprised. One of them is probably your girlfriend.
Yeah, and Elvis is the man running all the dealing.
You should cut down on it, the delusions have started already.
And if she were? What's sad about a perfectly legitimate and legal profession?
The really sad thing here is internet tough people. I think I'll start a charity for you sad little people. At least the whores of Amsterdam are nice to their fellow man.
Your delusions are not mine.
Sad little people says the pot smoking whore loving loser. You nederlanders certainly have a sense of humour , even if you have fuck all else going for you and your sad teeny weeny country.
Who's a Netherlandser? Just another thing you have no idea about. But spending Sunday afternoon on your computer arguing with the internet. Man the pot smoking whores are less sad than that.
"But spending Sunday afternoon on your computer arguing with the internet"
An ironic comment given you're the one who seems to be checking constantly all his old threads and reply after a couple of hours whereas I check once every one or 2 days. You're coming across as a bit desperate, but hey, go smoke some pot and pay your girlfriend for some sex. Perhaps you can convince yourself you have a life.
With rare exceptions (mostly people too stupid to know the difference between warm rain and being pissed on), the only people who won't admit the "War On Drugs" is an outright failure are law enforcement slackers with an unbreakable liplock on the public teat.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I'm not doing it on a Sunday afternoon.
Given I do neither of those things how about we can come to an agreement on how to proceed with the conversation, every time you have a thought just realise that you're wrong and you'll save everyone a whole lot of effort.
Have a nice day.