Hilarious Pot Legalization Supporters

[Chef Jim]

I'll turn it back to you: what is accurate indicia of a highly functioning person? As opposed to "just functioning?" What are the distinguishing characteristics?

 

My point is that I have known this person, and well. I know his friends well. And again, the "100% conjecture," just like the "no idea" language, is false on its face. Having less than a completely sure idea on an issue does not translate to "no idea" or "100% conjecture."

 

Why am I supposed to define a term (highly functional) you used? I can explain all day long what "just functional" looks like however. Unless you work with him daily, know how successful he is at work, what his managers/bosses think of him you have no idea if he is highly functional. Correct? There are people I've known that have dropped dead from alcohol or drug abuse and was shocked to find out. We don't know what skeletons people have in their closets. So highly functioning is almost impossible to prove in this case. Correct?

 

What does he do for a living? What are some of his achievements? If he has a PhD (a lot of loser PhD's out there) I would assume his accomplishments are known?

[SWATeam]

 

So you're cool with the number of people out there impaired going up, and potentially going up dramatically?

I'm much more concerned with idiots on smartphones

Yes on 64 in CA!!!

 

Once Cali goes adult use it's all over IMO. The end of this ridiculous prohibition is near!

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

Why am I supposed to define a term (highly functional) you used? I can explain all day long what "just functional" looks like however. Unless you work with him daily, know how successful he is at work, what his managers/bosses think of him you have no idea if he is highly functional. Correct? There are people I've known that have dropped dead from alcohol or drug abuse and was shocked to find out. We don't know what skeletons people have in their closets. So highly functioning is almost impossible to prove in this case. Correct?

 

What does he do for a living? What are some of his achievements? If he has a PhD (a lot of loser PhD's out there) I would assume his accomplishments are known?

Because YOU made the distinction between someone who is highly functioning and someone who is "just functioning." Not me. On what basis did you make that distinction? On what standard are you judging it against? You are taking issue with my characterization of highly functioning, but you fail to state on what basis, or even what you perceive that phrase to mean in opposition to mine.

 

You seem to conclude that behavior within one's employment is the only factor to consider in assessing functionality at this point. Yes, there happen to be PhDs who are losers, just as there are losers with other advanced degrees. But someone who has a PhD shouldn't be presumed to be a loser because he smokes pot consistently.

 

It seems as if you've made a conclusion regarding his maximum functionality based on information provided earlier, and any additional information will be put through the filter you seem to have.

[Chef Jim]

Because YOU made the distinction between someone who is highly functioning and someone who is "just functioning." Not me. On what basis did you make that distinction? On what standard are you judging it against? You are taking issue with my characterization of highly functioning, but you fail to state on what basis, or even what you perceive that phrase to mean in opposition to mine.

 

You seem to conclude that behavior within one's employment is the only factor to consider in assessing functionality at this point. Yes, there happen to be PhDs who are losers, just as there are losers with other advanced degrees. But someone who has a PhD shouldn't be presumed to be a loser because he smokes pot consistently.

 

It seems as if you've made a conclusion regarding his maximum functionality based on information provided earlier, and any additional information will be put through the filter you seem to have.

 

No you stated he's highly functional. Please explain.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

No you stated he's highly functional. Please explain.

I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct?

[Chef Jim]

I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct?

 

You did not explain how he's highly functional. Hell you said you've lost touch since college. How long has that been?

[4merper4mer]

I did. And you took issue with my characterization, citing a difference between highly functional and just functioning. You would have to know what both definitions mean in order to know there's a difference. Is that correct?

 

 

In what circumstance would you classify a jobless Ph D as highly functioning? I'm not saying there can't be one, I'm just interested in your take on it.

 

If you heard he had lost his job because he failed a pot test would you say that pot had impaired his function?

 

I think the difference here is as simple as you saying he is highly functioning and then describing how he was highly functioning. Those are two different things which do not necessarily correlate. For instance, if I said OJ Simpson seems like a really good guy, it would be different than if I said OJ Simpson seemed like a very good guy.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

You did not explain how he's highly functional. Hell you said you've lost touch since college. How long has that been?

As I stated above, we are both in our 20s. We've only recently lost contact. You apparently deduced from my posts what it meant in order to assert a distinction. Is that correct?

 

As I've said, he has succeeded academically at every level, which I would believe matters. According to LinkedIn, he is a lead researcher at a prestigious University in the field of "condensed matter physics," with an accompanying description of details with which I'm not familiar. I cannot comment on the difficulty of this position. Should I try to obtain letters of recommendation to confirm his functionality, as well?

 

 

In what circumstance would you classify a jobless Ph D as highly functioning? I'm not saying there can't be one, I'm just interested in your take on it.

 

If you heard he had lost his job because he failed a pot test would you say that pot had impaired his function?

 

I think the difference here is as simple as you saying he is highly functioning and then describing how he was highly functioning. Those are two different things which do not necessarily correlate. For instance, if I said OJ Simpson seems like a really good guy, it would be different than if I said OJ Simpson seemed like a very good guy.

Now you now he's jobless? Wow! I thought you already inferred from my posts that he is employed, from a friend I'm apparently unfamiliar with.

 

Which is it? Where are you deducing any employment information? From who?

 

Edit: In this scenario, why is this hypothetical person unemployed?

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[4merper4mer]

 

Now you now he's jobless? Wow! I thought you already inferred from my posts that he is employed, from a friend I'm apparently unfamiliar with.

 

Which is it? Where are you deducing any employment information? From who?

 

 

Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again.

 

My question was a general one and not specific to your friend who you don't know but know some people who know who used to smoke pot and might still smoke pot who you looked up on Linked In.

[Chef Jim]

As I stated above, we are both in our 20s. We've only recently lost contact. You apparently deduced from my posts what it meant in order to assert a distinction. Is that correct?

 

As I've said, he has succeeded academically at every level, which I would believe matters. According to LinkedIn, he is a lead researcher at a prestigious University in the field of "condensed matter physics," with an accompanying description of details with which I'm not familiar. I cannot comment on the difficulty of this position. Should I try to obtain letters of recommendation to confirm his functionality, as well?

 

 

See now if you had said you knew absolutely nothing about how highly functional he is because you don't even know what the !@#$ he does you would have saved us both a lot of keystrokes.

 

Ahhhh millenials. Ya gotta love 'em.

[PromoTheRobot]

Does anyone else find it unbelievably humorous watching these political videos of the people who want Pot legalized in New York State. Friggin hilarious burnouts.

 

Yeah man.......psssssss.....bad buzz.......Yeah it should be legal........Wait what?...........psss....bad buzz

 

Channel 7 was interviewing some of them. Where in the hell do they scrape this dirtbags up from?

 

Burnouts are funny.

 

If I'm a reporter I can only put burnouts on camera to skew my story.

[PolishDave]

Dope makes you dumb. - Especially regular use over a long time frame.

 

Is that even debatable?

 

The only ones who would argue otherwise are pot smokers who don't want to admit it is making them dumber.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

See now if you had said you knew absolutely nothing about how highly functional he is because you don't even know what the !@#$ he does you would have saved us both a lot of keystrokes.

 

Ahhhh millenials. Ya gotta love 'em.

Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat.

 

Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em!

[PromoTheRobot]

Dope makes you dumb. - Especially regular use over a long time frame.

 

Is that even debatable?

 

The only ones who would argue otherwise are pot smokers who don't want to admit it is making them dumber.

 

So what's your excuse?

[4merper4mer]

Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat.

 

Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em!

 

 

Is: present tense

 

Was : past tense

 

I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, they didn't do a good job teaching their kids the language.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

 

Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again.

 

My question was a general one and not specific to your friend who you don't know but know some people who know who used to smoke pot and might still smoke pot who you looked up on Linked In.

Did you miss my posts above stating I've never been drunk, high, or otherwise intoxicated? I don't think I'm the one who people would presume is high in this thread. I think it's the person pulling information from where it doesn't exist. Like you.

 

 

Is: present tense

 

Was : past tense

 

I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's face it, they didn't do a good job teaching their kids the language.

Don't fault me for your misinterpretations where its meaning is patently clear on its face.

[PolishDave]

 

So what's your excuse?

 

Ba dum cha! good one.

 

I burned a lot of green in my youth. And yes, it definitely made me dumber than I otherwise could/might have been. Kinda wish I could go back and not do it, but we don't get that luxury. There are a lot of things I can say that about. With weed, you just don't realize how dumb it is making you when you use it regularly. Your judgement is clouded by smoke. It is easier to just deny it than to admit you are closer to retarded as a result of your desire to giggle more often. I must admit though, it sure does make music a lot more enjoyable. oh...and food.

Edited November 8, 2016 by PolishDave

[Chef Jim]

Whereas you can apparently distinguish between terms when you cannot articulate the meaning of one. Quite the amazing feat.

 

Ahhh AARPers...gotta love 'em!

 

I don't have to distinguish the difference. You said he is HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL I'm just asking for clarification on how you know that and so far you have been unable to do that. And I will leave you with these questions.

 

How highly functional when he drives after a couple of bong hits?

How highly functional when he pays his bills after a couple fatties?

How highly functional is he when he fills out a loan application after a couple spliffs?

How highly functional is he when he as to decide between the regular or nacho cheese Doritos after a couple of bowls?

 

If I remember correctly you've never used before so you have no clue as to how goofy it is to do some of these things after you got your buzz on.

 

But you know he's highly functional. Once again. How do you know this?

[SWATeam]

Dope makes you dumb. - Especially regular use over a long time frame.

 

Is that even debatable?

 

The only ones who would argue otherwise are pot smokers who don't want to admit it is making them dumber.

Nope it's not debatable. It's completely false

[Chef Jim]

 

So what's your excuse?

 

He's Polish Duh.

[PolishDave]

Nope it's not debatable. It's completely false

 

De Nile is a river in Egypt brutha.

 

He's Polish Duh.

And proud! Booyah!

 

Free pierogi for everyone.

 

It's really a great stoner food.

Edited November 8, 2016 by PolishDave

[4merper4mer]

Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!

 

 

 

As for him, I lost touch after college, after he graduated from Notre Dame.

 

 

He is highly functional even though you lost touch with him after college?

 

I'm just quoting you dude.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

I don't have to distinguish the difference. You said he is HIGHLY FUNCTIONAL I'm just asking for clarification on how you know that and so far you have been unable to do that. And I will leave you with these questions.

 

How highly functional when he drives after a couple of bong hits?

How highly functional when he pays his bills after a couple fatties?

How highly functional is he when he fills out a loan application after a couple spliffs?

How highly functional is he when he as to decide between the regular or nacho cheese Doritos after a couple of bowls?

 

If I remember correctly you've never used before so you have no clue as to how goofy it is to do some of these things after you got your buzz on.

 

But you know he's highly functional. Once again. How do you know this?

You took issue with my characterization of highly functional, but you didn't know what it meant in the first place? And you're not sure what it means yourself? Seems prudent. Also convenient you don't provide your own standard by which it can be judged. How can you say you don't have to distinguish when you already have earlier?! You noted the difference between just functional and highly functional already, did you not?

 

Your point-of-view is a self-fulfilling prophecy that allows no room for a viewpoint that opposes yours.

[SWATeam]

Today's election will be a banner moment in the movement to end prohibition.

 

Have fun with your stereotypes and Tom Petty references, the war is over!

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

 

 

He is highly functional even though you lost touch with him after college?

 

I'm just quoting you dude.

You make this too easy.

 

"Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!"

 

Here's the quote. Many people I know, as in know currently, are both highly functional human beings and pot smokers. That would not, of course, include this guy.

 

However, in that quote, it states "have known," which indicates past tense. Past tense applies to this man, since we have lost touch. I knew him personally, before, and as I've said numerous times before, every indication is that he highly functioning. And employed. I knew employment was big for you, and that's been established, so you've chosen to inaccurately decipher and parse my posts for unwarranted conclusions.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[4merper4mer]

You make this too easy.

 

"Many people I know, and have known, are both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!"

 

Here's the quote. Many people I know, as in know currently, are both highly functional human beings and pot smokers. That would not, of course, include this guy.

 

However, in that quote, it states "have known," which indicates past tense. Past tense applies to this man, since we have lost touch. I knew him personally, before, and as I've said numerous times before, every indication is that he highly functioning. And employed. I knew employment was big for you, and that's been established, so you've chosen to inaccurately decipher and parse my posts for unwarranted conclusions.

 

 

In this case you left the word "were" out of your sentence. It should have read:

 

"Many people I know, and have known, are or were both highly (no pun) functioning human beings and pot smokers. One with a PhD in physics!"

 

 

The italicized sentence, which is not actually a sentence, should have tipped me off that something was amiss.

 

I now understand that, even though you did not specify at the time, you were saying that this dude was really smart and that in your clinical opinion his pot use did not rob him of any potential whatsoever. I'm glad you cleared that up. Thanks.

Today's election will be a banner moment in the movement to end prohibition.

 

Have fun with your stereotypes and Tom Petty references, the war is over!

 

 

You know when you'll know who really won the war to legalize pot?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

 

In this case you left the word "were" out of your sentence. It should have read:

 

 

The italicized sentence, which is not actually a sentence, should have tipped me off that something was amiss.

 

I now understand that, even though you did not specify at the time, you were saying that this dude was really smart and that in your clinical opinion his pot use did not rob him of any potential whatsoever. I'm glad you cleared that up. Thanks.

 

 

Your post might be valid if I had lost all contact with those who communicated with him, often. But I didn't, so it's not.

 

Here's where you're becoming confused. I am not saying he WAS smart. I am saying I DID know him, and converse with those who do know him. The past v. present tense distinction I made had nothing to do with his intelligence, so I don't know why you're trying to make it.

[Chef Jim]

You took issue with my characterization of highly functional, but you didn't know what it meant in the first place? And you're not sure what it means yourself? Seems prudent. Also convenient you don't provide your own standard by which it can be judged. How can you say you don't have to distinguish when you already have earlier?! You noted the difference between just functional and highly functional already, did you not?

 

Your point-of-view is a self-fulfilling prophecy that allows no room for a viewpoint that opposes yours.

 

The only issue I took with your characterization is you have no proof that he is. Once again (and after this I'm done) you're the one that said that he (and others) were highly functional while stoned. I'm not here to debate the difference between being highly and marginally functional. I'm here to prove that you have no idea if he is highly functional. That's it. The only reason I've gone round and round with you is to find out how you consider him to be highly functional. So I will ask you one last time:

 

What are you basing your statement on that he and others are highly functional while stoned?

 

BTW you say that I allow for no viewpoint other than mine. You don't even know what my viewpoint is. You don't even know what you're arguing here do you. And to take a page out of 4mer's playbook. Are you sure you've never gotten high? Because you sure do debate as if you were.

[Maury Ballstein]

Worst thread ever.

 

Take a bong hit idiots.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

The only issue I took with your characterization is you have no proof that he is. Once again (and after this I'm done) you're the one that said that he (and others) were highly functional while stoned. I'm not here to debate the difference between being highly and marginally functional. I'm here to prove that you have no idea if he is highly functional. That's it. The only reason I've gone round and round with you is to find out how you consider him to be highly functional. So I will ask you one last time:

 

What are you basing your statement on that he and others are highly functional while stoned?

 

BTW you say that I allow for no viewpoint other than mine. You don't even know what my viewpoint is. You don't even know what you're arguing here do you. And to take a page out of 4mer's playbook. Are you sure you've never gotten high? Because you sure do debate as if you were.

Saying I have "no idea" and "no proof" after telling you what I know and have known of him is, once again, foolish on your part. But you continue to do it. And I never said he was highly functional while stoned. Where do you get this from? I said he is a consistent pot user, which doesn't mean he has to do important tasks while stoned.

 

You continually refuse to state on what basis you're stating your distinctions, even though you attempted to call me out for not defining them. Apparently you knew enough earlier, but not now.

 

As for you, with over 35,000 posts on this board, I would think you'd know how to defend your previous statements, instead of pretending you never made them. Maybe you're just used to ignoring them, or maybe you need a new hobby that doesn't involve active debate on a web forum? They say practice makes perfect, but with as many as you have, you're still pretty far behind.

 

Edit: correction, 35,000 posts. If ever there was a highly functioning message board member, you'd be it.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[section122]

Worst thread ever.

 

Take a bong hit idiots.

 

Seriously.

 

Nightime in Nigeria don't bother with 4merper4mer. He is a troll that is allowed free reign here for some reason. Chef Jim is arguing semantics for god know what reason.

 

Marijuana is an interesting conversation. Older generations bought hook, line, and sinker that it is terrible and good for nothing. I have a long standing belief that the demonizing of marijuana is a huge problem. Kids are told that weed, coke, crack, and heroin are all bad for you and then they experiment with weed. They find out it isn't so bad and wonder if the others are as bad as advertised. I also believe firmly in medicinal purposes as I have seen first hand the relief it allows some people.

[Chef Jim]

Worst thread ever.

 

Take a bong hit idiots.

 

But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.

Saying I have "no idea" and "no proof" after telling you what I know and have known of him is, once again, foolish on your part. But you continue to do it. And I never said he was highly functional while stoned. Where do you get this from? I said he is a consistent pot user, which doesn't mean he has to do important tasks while stoned.

 

 

Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.

 

And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Chef Jim

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

 

But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.

 

 

Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.

 

And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.

So, you're not done here?

 

When I do restate and refute the argument you're attempting to make, at some point, try to resist the temptation to tweak and alter aspects of it. Again.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Nighttime in Nigeria

[boyst]

I award 2 points Ryan. 1 point Jim. -2 Niagara.

 

 

And weed is stupid. Legalizing it is stupid for many many reasons. But I am for legalizing it so long as penalties are stiff

[Chef Jim]

So, you're not done here?

 

When I do restate and refute the argument you're attempting to make, at some point, try to resist the temptation to tweak and alter aspects of it. Again.

 

I have tweaked nothing. All I've tried to do is figure out how you know your friend is highly functional and you've not been able to do that. So I've given up trying to get you to answer my question.

[coloradobillsfan]

I'm a successful network engineer and a marijuana user. I don't smoke at or before work, just like I wouldn't drink at or before work. But after work and weekends is my time - neither the government (nor anyone else) has any business in it. The only factor I have ever had to worry about was the legality, and I'm happy (and proud) to say that in my state it is now legal. I hope other states follow suit so others like me who want to enjoy marijuana privately can do so without fear of reprisal. This will be my one and only post on this topic.

[Nighttime in Nigeria]

I award 2 points Ryan. 1 point Jim. -2 Niagara.

 

 

And weed is stupid. Legalizing it is stupid for many many reasons. But I am for legalizing it so long as penalties are stiff

Great insight. Weed is stupid. Thanks for the contribution.

I'm a successful network engineer and a marijuana user. I don't smoke at or before work, just like I wouldn't drink at or before work. But after work and weekends is my time - neither the government (nor anyone else) has any business in it. The only factor I have ever had to worry about was the legality, and I'm happy (and proud) to say that in my state it is now legal. I hope other states follow suit so others like me who want to enjoy marijuana privately can do so without fear of reprisal. This will be my one and only post on this topic.

According to many here, you don't exist. Not possible. Ask 4mer.

[IDBillzFan]

Once Cali goes adult use it's all over IMO.

 

Cali already went adult use. They just make you pay for a membership card first. Anyone tells you it's 'medical' marijuana is pulling your chain.

[boyst]

Great insight. Weed is stupid. Thanks for the contribution.

 

According to many here, you don't exist. Not possible. Ask 4mer.

what is then point of weed? There is none

[Maury Ballstein]

what is then point of weed? There is none

Oh boy. Try food, entertainment, and sex for starters.

 

But you've read it and felt the need to comment so good job bong boy.

 

 

Well most stoners are functional when they're not stoned. And I'll give you a pass on that because you've never used. And if he's a pot smoker it's highly likely he does important things while stoned. It's the nature of the beast. Right Ryan.

 

And to the rest. You still don't know what my argument is. Yes as Section 122 said it's semantics. And I'll let you reread through this to figure out my argument. Try some weed it my clarify things for you.

 

Weed and coffee pairs well. Allows for "important things" to be accomplished. Couple shots of espresso even better!

 

Not a story. Legalize it for 18 and up. Let's move on.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Ryan L Billz