DFL Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 I smoked a lot of weed for a lot of years. It is addicting in a I wanna joint kind of way, it certainly has a phyoclogical addiction potential which can be pretty strong in some individuals . I think it does have a harmless effect on most people and think the Government is a bad place to get info on it as it always has been. No body ever died from pot? Bob Marley died from emphisema and puffed about 6-10 joints a day, did it kill him? IDHK but he did die from a lung disease. I quit smoking because I was going to a country with a hard line drug policy and I was getting lung infections when ever I caught a cold. It has been 5 years and at times I miss it, will I do it again? maybe I would but I won't be using it as much as I used to. Things like it affects motivation are true, never found the big breasts or sexual fuction to be though. Never made me very crazy or afficted my mental stability much IMO If I could make millions if I didn't do it, I wouldn't have but kids (esply football players) are not known for the brains they bring to being pop culture icons so I am not surprised. BTW it should be legal but never will be in my lifetime and that is a shame but the way it is. best post in this thread...nicely done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Again, no one but you is claiming the cops lied about the pot. Without it even you say there would be no grounds for search. Yet you claim that the gun search/charge was inevitable. You make no sense. Or pretend not to--just can't understand why. You understood my explanation of why they didn't bother with a weed charge. It was pretty straightforward. A small amount of weed means nothing to the cops---they just used it as their way into the trunk where their suspicions were confirmed. That's what their looking for buddy. I don't know about any women's bathroom QB rape video being erased. But as time goes by, any evidence in this case may go the way of that in the ML hit and run case. You've fallen into the same hole again. Funny doc, but the explanation given by the cops for why they didn't charge Lynch with pot possession, seeing as how it was the basis for the search (and they obviously knew there was a gun in the trunk of his car!) is because "no one admitted [the blunts] were his." No mention of "a small amount of weed means nothing to [us]" or that they were only looking for/satisfied with the gun charge. So which time were they lying? About the pot? About their explanation for not charging him? That's why I called you gullible for falling for their ruse (which I agree was just so that they could search the car), much less believing their laughable explanation. And again, as far as we know, Lynch has never tested positive for marijuana. Lynch could have fought the legality of the search based on bogus pot charges until he was blue in the face. He wasn't going to get the gun charges dropped. I know I told you on the Hyperbills board that he could, and apparently you believed me, but I asked a lawyer about it and they said "no way." As for Big Ben, maybe if Sir Roger had had a sit down with him after the first "crazy woman" charged him, this second incident would never have happened. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted March 27, 2010 Share Posted March 27, 2010 I don't care, other than the fact that it's illegal (and shouldn't be.) 40% of the USA lights up a gorilla finger once in a while. To me it's no different that having a few beers. PTR I don't agree, actually I think a "few beers" can do more damage then a couple of hits from the bong... JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts