Bday Prang

Just doing something for "about" 15 years does not mean you have the slightest clue as to how it affects everybody else. How many other cannabis weaned ex heroin addicts like you are there posting rubbish on this forum ?

And your response of "That is not what I asked though is it? " implies to me that you don't consider my answer to be relevant to your question? I didn't realise that you expected me to reply using your exact words? Is that an american "thing"? Are you really having difficulty understanding my reply due to that? Or is this a really pedantic attempt at "Grammar policing" remember you are american so not really a native speaker of English The answer to your question was obviously "yes" as that was the first word I typed. OK so far? The text afterwards, simply, (or so I thought) explains why, and, I thought, reinforced the reason for my answer. Obviously not and I wish I hadn't bothered The rest of your post, that you appear to have deflected from successfully, was rubbish too by the way

Reformed smokers are the worst . Never (knowingly or intentionally) met an AA member but its probably part of the therapy, not blaming themselves and all that. Glad to hear about the health benefits though,and i genuinely dread to think what the medical establishment would have prescribed for your condition

He's probably never even been here

well my original reply to your ramblings is now a "popular post" so you had better hurry up to clarify your question or you might lose whatever credibility you thought you had. Come on all eyes are on you and we are all waiting

So, here we go again , Tell me now, what do you think you asked, ?? below is cut and pasted from your post that certainly looks like your question does it not? And my reply which i think answers your question quite directly and to the point , was Obviously by personal experience I mean "use of" So I fail to understand your response of I never claimed that reading comprehension was my strong point, so you will have to help me and everybody else out. just explain what you asked, rather than wasting my time with your failed attempt at insulting me

More rubbish, how many habitual users do you know ? I know plenty, and have never encountered any suffering from the above. Although I will concede that heavy smoking could lead to respiratory problems With regards to the other ailments you and others never fail to mention How about a bit of lateral thinking for a change ? Is it a possibility that certain people in general are susceptible to those conditions ? Well of course it is , as not every inmate of the asylum is an ex cannabis user. Most people who smoke don't end up there, The paranoid, the psychotic and the schizophrenics could quite possibly and in all probability have been heading that way regardless of whether they used cannabis or not Very difficult, if not impossible, to prove one way or the other regardless of what you have read "on the internet" or on mainstream media

As you can see above that is exactly what you asked and my reply was,,,, So what do you think you asked ? Non of the anti-cannabis propaganda has proved true at all. Men don't die for it and women don't cry for it, I won't mention the disgusting racist implications that were also used during the initial calls for prohibition, but needless to say, any right minded person is fully aware that it was a work of fiction, as indeed is all the rest What has happened is the original reefer madness propaganda has been used to form the basis for this particular battle in "the war on drugs" Statistics and research has all been manipulated to promote the resulting narrative Looks to me like you are "victim" looking for something to blame for your addiction to Heroin, the blame lies solely with you, trying to blame it on weed is nothing short of fantasy. Millions of people enjoy cannabis and never move on to anything "stronger" The "gateway effect" has been proved to be a myth, have you never wondered why it was only ever applied to cannabis and not to alcohol ? On your own admission you have used mescaline and Angel dust, and more than likely several other substances, you just need to accept the fact that you are predisposed to indulge in psychoactive drugs , in other words "A druggie" nothing wrong with that, and no need to blame it on anything, Just accept its part of your DNA . No point in trying to blame cannabis, and after all it wasn't the 1st thing that ever passed your lips was it, not much support for the unproductive here in Thailand I have never heard it called a welfare state before are you sure you are "clean"

Yes it is my opinion that those with no personal experience are absolutely unable to provide any sort of unbiased assessment. What is their "unbiased assessment" based on other than agenda driven 3rd party "reports" Could you imagine "wine tasting" where the tasters don't actually personally taste the wine? but give there opinions based on what others have told them ?? I have never used "Mescaline" or "Angel Dust" I cannot possibly give an assessment of those drugs unbiased or otherwise, but all I could do, if I was that way inclined, would be to repeat what I have read "on the net" hardly an unbiased assessment. The "Reefer Madness" film was never produced as a "joke" but its entire narrative is indeed laughable. The comedy effect, however, can only be appreciated by those who have actually used cannabis, non users, by description, have no way of knowing that it was a hideous work of fiction and as such their judgement is somewhat tainted. It was endorsed by the government at the time and forms the very foundation of a vocal minority of society's aversion to cannabis use, My reference to "reefer madness" was not only directed at that film but at the ensuing hysteria it started, and the ridiculous anti cannabis propaganda that followed, both of which continues today The fact that you consider yourself now "clean" , which is a term generally used to describe an addict recovering from addiction to heroin or other addictive substances, is to me quite hilarious and suggests to me that you never actually smoked it at all. Even if you actually did smoke before, what makes you believe that others should not be allowed to do so, and form their own opinions . Just because it was "not for you" 30 years ago is not a valid reason to advocate its prohibition. I don't like cigars and I don't like the smell of cigar smoke, but I feel no need to suggest that cigars should be banned. Maybe I am just a bit more tolerant than you

Posted 53 minutes ago What part of "not for sale to children" is so difficult to understand ?

not much chance of an unbiased assessment from you or anybody else either thanks to "reefer madness" etc

Hmmmmmm myocarditis ? I have heard that mentioned quite a lot recently, although not in relation to cannabis. I seem to remember a certain vaccine was suspected as a cause

is the unofficial Cambodian charge for a same day return to Thailand still 300 baht or has it increased, Its a few years since I visited Chong Chom / O'smach

I dont think thats strictly true. I have found there is normally little to be gained by trying to negotiate aka. "arguing" especially with Thai women.However there is no need to allow oneself be walked all over. A flat refusal to their demands and a flat refusal to discuss the matter further is the way to go. In my experience this stops matters escalating to the stabbing level. By all means stand your ground but negotiation (argument) is normally pointless I would not leave the house unlocked, but I generally leave my car unlocked as I keep nothing of value inside it, and if somebody really wanted to get in It takes only a second or two to smash a window and its a pain to get it repaired Probably a result of originating from Liverpool but these days its almost impossible for an opportunist thief to start a car with out the key / transponder

a result of the Uk's demise and little to do with the Thai military

its not our democracy and we have not voted

interesting use of the word "we"

so how do you account for the tourists that come here ? Did they get lost on route to somewhere else?

Kind of predictably ironic isn't it The wokies overcome with outrage on behalf of a group of people who have been advised that they may be at increased risk of contracting a disease. Presumably they think that becoming infected with this disease is preferable to being "offended" What is concerning is how quickly what was effectively sensible public health policy advice was cancelled purely in response to the virtue signalling of a disturbed and vocal minority What would have been the outcome following the outbreak of AIDS had wokeism and social media existed in the 80's Further evidence in my opinion that Wokeness needs to be stamped out at least as much as any of the prejudices it claims to stand against As another example, the wokies were outraged when they found out that in the UK police had stopped and searched slightly more black people as part of an anti knife crime crack down. The cries of racism were deafening, even though the majority of the perpetrators of stabbings were black, as indeed were the victims So again it seems to their way of thinking, better to have a black kid stabbed than to offend the feelings of others. (namely themselves)

So he was "british" or a "british national" or whatever, judging things by the legalities or by the standards of wokeness, or skin colour or any other parameters seem a pit pointless The main thing is, as was mentioned in the head line, his killer is "safe" Thank god for that? but safe from what exactly, justice perhaps ? and is that a good thing for anybody other than him?

There is probably more vocal opposition on this forum than in the whole of the rest of the country. Not really surprising when one considers the average age of the people who post on here, Change is never received well by those ripe for the nursing home Fortunately their views don't count here and the generations that still believe everything governments tell them is getting thinner on the ground and will continue to do so

there is no rot it is a figment of your imagination

hahaha don't hold your breath !

why ? would that be cheaper than 49 baht? would it confirm infection too ? why even bother if you have not been out?

You weren't expecting much of a response to that answer were you well sorry but.... Some might say there are adequate grounds for both to be banned thus depriving you of what you consider to be harmless enjoyment. Golf is somewhat addictive from what I've seen, and thousands of "golf widows" would back me up on that, there is also a strong chance of suffering personal injury, not to mention the disproportionate number of golfers that get struck by lightning So "Dangerous and addictive" your words I believe would be a perfectly appropriate description Ripe for banning isn't it ?? Football well need I mention the extreme violence that can occur amongst both players and spectators ? The terrifying spectacle of thousands of fans often intoxicated with alcohol and armed with knives or even guns running wild in the streets? Or the proven dangers and health and safety implications of allowing 50,000 or more people congregate together in a very confined space? Or the extortionate cost of blackmarket tickets, the proceeds from the sale of which could be used to fund organised crime? Or the shame suffered by the parents of young girls who have been spit roasted by some of these Ridiculously overpaid animals ? I could go on but I won't "But but but I only watch it on the telly" that's no way out , you are still supporting it, without the money they raise from TV it would stop tomorrow Lets ban them both now ,how would you feel then?