Drug talk on Modified

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 01 Jul 2005 06:29

btw. this thread AIN'T just about these threads but also morphed to sth. like "what image do we want to present".
If people like to post such shitty threads it does represent A PART of our community in a natural way and should not be banned. Reply to such a thread and write sth. why and how you critisize it; don't just delete/ban.

NotHisRealName · Post by **NotHisRealName** » 01 Jul 2005 06:48

The Actual Sized E wrote:I honestly feel that if a parent happens on a pot or other drug discussion and consequently donsen't want her child participating in our sport, than that child shouldn't be participating. That's the parent's job. If that potential player is young or immature enough to still be bound by his parents rules, than who are we to interfere with a parents role by trying to alter the truth.

I think, when it comes down to it, kids can look up anything on the internet. How many people have tried to find out how to make a bomb? And how easy is it to view porn?
It is the parents job to ensure that their child is viewing only what they would want their child to view. Parents must do their job.
I think banning a kid from playing footbag because of this thread (or other subjects on this forum) would be rare, and a knee-jerk reaction to an issue that is so prevelant in society all around the world (not just this little online community).

I do think drug talk should be limited, yet not banned. I drink alcahol, and occasionally smoke some weed. And then there's the occasional pain-relief tablet. However, I don't want to plaster that fact all over the internet, and I don't think it needs to be such a prominent part of this community. I'm happy with this thread because it still allows discussion on drugs, yet it restricts it to one thread.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 01 Jul 2005 07:28

Kiser_Tobias wrote:It is the parents job to ensure that their child is viewing only what they would want their child to view. Parents must do their job.

I heavily disagree on that part :
I'd say it is the parents job to tell it's child the facts. Children always do what they shall not

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Jul 2005 07:34

comastalker wrote:don't just delete/ban.

what are you talking about. I thought it was clear nothing is being deleted or banned - I don't understand why you keep talking about deleting or banning. Do you just not read what other people write?

sorin · Post by **sorin** » 01 Jul 2005 07:47

Humm... I kinda suggested drug talk should be limited because of the 10, 11 year olds. Imagine, he/she stumbles on a drug topic on modified, interesting, i heard about it in school, lets have a looksie; His/hers dad comes in, sees a word like drug, ganja, pot, etc., freaks out and bans the kid from playing, and tells other parents footbag is a stoner sport. Other sports have big heroes advertising health food and vitamine supplements, all people adore them even if it is a common fact that they shoot up steroids and performance boosters, footbag has a longhaired pothead, juggling a beanbag img. It is not a guy dad would like his daughter to bring home

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Jul 2005 08:02

Actually other sports are having problems congressionally with Steroids at the moment.

Athletics or not, drugs are a personal decision. I could say that the glorification of drugs in movies like Cheech and Chong and Friday are just as responsible for the kiddie drug problem in America at least. But whatever I guess.

Drugs are illegal in my country cause some ignorant ass white people got together in the olden days without medical evidence and said lets bann this and that cause we don't understand it nor do we want to.

There is a huge conflict of interest in the US right now over medicinal marajuana. Basically the governing body of govt. research is also the biggest opponent of legalisation. So no reasearch is being done, cause the drug is illegal.

No logic = No progress

Not all drugs have been given their fair shake, otherwise alcohol would have been banned again in the US.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 01 Jul 2005 08:04

I neither said it would happen nor did I say that ppl want it to happen.
You maybe should read what I write...
I'm really pernickety on argumentative logic - seems like you ain't...

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 01 Jul 2005 08:06

FlexThis wrote:No logic = No progress

Not all drugs have been given their fair shake, otherwise alcohol would have been banned again in the US.

What I don't understand :
Weed e.g. may be a big industry (maybe bigger than tobacco). In general, when it comes to economic benefits, the state is a lot more "tolerant"...

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Jul 2005 08:12

Yeah, the state of being high

State's laws lost their power last week. It put a lot of Cannibis(sp?) clubs out-of-business and pissed off a lot of angry dying people.

If you are gonna die, shouldn't you be able to take a drug, any drug??? I mean you're gonna die either way.

Makes about as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 01 Jul 2005 08:18

the argument on this is, that you may endanger(?) other people.
example : you're really hard on LSD, think you can fly and try it outside your window. You land, die and 4 cars (inlcuding their drivers) also do...

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 01 Jul 2005 08:24

Agreed - LSD is as powerful man made drug. I knew of a guy who stuck his arm in a vat of liquid acid used to make blotter.

From what I heard he stuck in his arm and then looked at his friends as if to say WTF did I just do. Need-less-to-say he died almost instantly.

But I'm speaking more about MJ, cause it catches the most hell for the least amount of side-effects, illness, or even death associated with it. The history behind it is stupid to say the least and yet it is still illegal.

Cigarettes cause cancer. MJ is prescribed to cancer patients. See what I mean?

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 04 Jul 2005 15:43

"I really think Dan and Richard are taking a ridiculous stance on this topic-from what you say it sounds like you think that all drug talk on modified is banned."

No, so don't be smug and put words into my mouth.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 04 Jul 2005 20:53

BainbridgeShred wrote:Being gay isn't necesarily "socially acceptable" either but I doubt you'd stop anyone from talking about their lifestyle on Modified, granted it was in the right section and all.

I'm sorry but I assumed that when you talking about us "stopping" people from talking about being gay (or not stopping to be accurate) you were actually trying to make a point about this topic.

It seems logical to me to make the assumption that your comment is inferring that we shouldn't stop people from talking about drugs. Please explain to me how this is not the case and what you actually meant.

Also I thought what I said was pretty clear:

"From what you say it sounds like..." - What that means is that you appear to be saying that you are opposing drug talk being banned. I'm not saying that you are at all. If other people read my comments and misunderstand simple words like "sounds" and assume that that is exactly what you're saying thats not my fault at all. I'm clearly not putting words in your mouth - just writing out what I interpret your posts to mean. There is an obvious difference between those things and I'm fairly sure you know that.

comastalker · Post by **comastalker** » 05 Jul 2005 04:44

Well, for me it wasn't the assmuption but the "I really think Dan and Richard are taking a ridiculous stance on this topic".
Flip your sentence parts, make them a chain of cause and effect and what you just said really applies....

Sth. like :
"From what you say it sounds like you think that all drug talk on modified is banned, which I'd say would be a riciculous stance"

But to first condemn and then assume just ain't the polite way.
"There is an obvious difference between those things and I'm fairly sure you know that."