Companies pay athletes to endorse products because they are popular and it will help them sell something. You cause problems for yourself, you cause problems for them. They don’t like problems, they like profit.
Like it or not, many people don’t approve of smoking pot and the company will take heat.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
I’d have to agree with you, I know a few and they’re useless waste products. some people might smoke a little and lead productive lives, but I don’t know any.
[/quote]
Now you do!
[quote]chimera182 wrote:
streamline wrote:
patricio2626 wrote:
streamline wrote:
He’s a swimming. That’s the measure of his success. Pot smoker or not, come the 2012 Olympics all the assholes will be wanting him to represent his country. Bring home the Gold Micheal, then it’s back to the basement for you.
He’s a swimmer*
Michael*
Sorry, couldn’t resist 
Apparently my grammar and my spelling sucks 
Actually it would be: “my grammar and my spelling suck” not sucks. Sorry :p[/quote]
So, kick me when I’m down
[quote]streamline wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’d have to agree with you, I know a few and they’re useless waste products. some people might smoke a little and lead productive lives, but I don’t know any.
Now you do![/quote]
He forgot to add “and has superior syntax”.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Companies pay athletes to endorse products because they are popular and it will help them sell something. You cause problems for yourself, you cause problems for them. They don’t like problems, they like profit.
Like it or not, many people don’t approve of smoking pot and the company will take heat.[/quote]
That because of the negative propaganda your government spews out. They did the same thing with alcohol. In general people aren’t known for their ability to think for themselves.
[quote]streamline wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Companies pay athletes to endorse products because they are popular and it will help them sell something. You cause problems for yourself, you cause problems for them. They don’t like problems, they like profit.
Like it or not, many people don’t approve of smoking pot and the company will take heat.
That because of the negative propaganda your government spews out. They did the same thing with alcohol. In general people aren’t known for their ability to think for themselves. [/quote]
It’s not necessarily due to negative government propaganda, some of us thought smoking pot was stupid from an early age. I didn’t do it because it was illegal. Plain and simple. Now I have learned it can have negative effects on your brain functioning. And yes I do know that alcohol also does.
So why make something legal now that was illegal? If it was government propaganda, wouldn’t legalization be a form of propaganda in the other direction? Oops, it’s okay now, light em up!?
Wouldn’t that possibly influence more people to start? My thoughts are that I won’t smoke anything due the the negative effects of, well, smoking things. Period.
People can think for themselves, as October girl stated. Some of us don’t really care and won’t support your efforts. I won’t smoke pot if it was legal and I won’t support an initiative to make it legal, but you’re welcome to try.
Because at the crux of it for me, I don’t care. here are other thing I don’t care about: France, hip hop music, new country music, cole slaw, competitive figure skating. most of these things are legal, but if someone outlawed them I wouldn’t shed a tear.
The thing that annoys me me about pot smokers is that they think pot is actually good for them. Its usage has no benefits. If you can’t be creative and novel without drugs, then you suck at being creative and novel. Marijuana does nothing good for anyone, save get you high. Even the productive, contributing people would be even more so without the pot.
Most of the smokers I know are lowlife shitbags too. There’s one or two who seem to live normal, productive lives despite their usage, but it still has affected them negatively. Like others have said, they’re just better at hiding their habit.
Should it be legalized? I believe so. Do i care if you use it? No. But shut the fuck up about how great it is, you dirty hippie motherfuckers. It’s another shit drug, just like tobacco, alcohol, or heroin.
And fuck Michael Phelps. He’s a loser who swims fast.
And fuck Canada. You guys just suck harder than we do. Even Mexico beats your shit.
That’s all I have to say about that.
Damn, Vicomte, that was harsh. Well, I guess if he can take a broad, sweeping poke at Americans, he better be able to take some Canada-bashing. Anyways, not trying to play Devil’s advocate, but it is used to stimulate appetite for cancer/HIV patients, so to say has no benifits isn’t entirely true. That, and alcohol is benificial in moderation.
[quote]Vicomte wrote:
And fuck Canada. You guys just suck harder than we do. Even Mexico beats your shit.[/quote]
Well that simply isn’t true. Canada regularly competes with socialist nations like Sweden and Denmark for best quality of life in the world, while maintaining a below-average tax-to-GDP ratio among OECD nations.
We rank higher than the USA on the State of World Liberty Index:
as well as the Human Development Index:
I mean, claiming that Canada “sucks harder than [you] do” is like getting a B- when your twin brother gets an A+, then telling him, “Oh yeah!? Well I’m smarter than you!”
It just doesn’t work.
Although Mexico does beat us when it comes to tax-to-GDP ratio:
but seeing as individual freedom and quality of life are ridiculously higher here than there, I don’t think our quite reasonable 33.3% ratio is much of a price to pay.
Although something tells me you just wanted to state your opinion as fact, without actually backing it up with evidence – which, if history teaches us anything, is a national past-time.
I do have to hand it to you though, I really thought you guys weren’t going to elect Barack Obama as President.
I thought for sure that it was too good to be true. There would be this shining beacon of hope for a return(?) to reasonable, forward-thinking foreign and domestic policy in the United States, where an administration governs in the best interests of the majority of its people… and then you all would elect McCain and Palin instead.
I didn’t think you had it in you, but you pulled it off.
Great job, eh? 
ElbowStrike
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Yep, and if the truth were to be known you could stand to be taxed at a significantly higher rate than now and STILL everybody would be full of mirth and joviality and all-around good cheer, right?[/quote]
Nope. That’s why we’ve elected governments that have consistently run surplus budgets, paid down a significant portion of the national debt, rolled the savings into tax reductions, and have given us the best credit rating and debt-to-GDP ratio in the G8. Probably out of all of the OECD, too. I’m sorry if the facts disappoint your preconceived notion of silly, oblivious, tax-loving Canadians.
The USA could learn a thing or two (or three, or four…) from the Canadian way of doing things. Then one day you might actually beat us on any of the internationally accepted measures of individual freedom and quality of life. I’m sorry that we consistently score higher on indexes of personal freedom and human development.
President Obama is visiting tomorrow. He’s already stated that America has a lot to learn from Canada’s banking system, seeing as our economy didn’t crash after yours did and we didn’t have to spend expensive bail-outs on our financial institutions.
I apologise if any of this contradicts the propaganda you’ve been taught from birth that America is, always has been, and always will be the “greatest country in the world” – makes no mistakes and can learn nothing from other countries. ;^)
It’s not so bad, though. On the plus side, you do have a marginally lower tax-to-GDP ratio than we do. Mexico’s is much lower, though, so if you work really really hard at reducing your taxes and government spending at all costs, one day Americans will be able to live the Mexican dream and have the same quality of life that those enviable Mexicans do.
Wouldn’t that be great?
ElbowStrike
It’s worth pointing out that a great deal of the benefits Canada enjoys entails freeloading on American tax-money.
For example, your cheap drugs are financed by our expensive drugs.
Your military security is financed by our military presence.
Your exports do well because we’re more than willing to borrow cash to buy them.
Other than that, Elbowstrike, good call.
[quote]Otep wrote:
It’s worth pointing out that a great deal of the benefits Canada enjoys entails freeloading on American tax-money.
For example, your cheap drugs are financed by our expensive drugs.
Your military security is financed by our military presence.
Your exports do well because we’re more than willing to borrow cash to buy them.
Other than that, Elbowstrike, good call.[/quote]
It’s worth pointing out that a great deal of the benefits the United States enjoys entails freeloading on Canada’s tax money.
For example, your corporations buy out companies up here, charge “management fees” to head office South of the border, and avoid paying Canadian taxes. American corporations thereby directly steal tax dollars from the Canadian government and pay it to the American government.
Your military machine is fueled by a NAFTA-guaranteed, non-stop supply of cheap oil from the Alberta oilsands. The oil companies drilling that oil benefit from a 100% accelerated capital cost allowance, meaning they pay zero taxes until they recover their initial investment.
Your businesses do so well because they have a large supply of superior-quality Canadian goods at market competitive prices. Since we fundamentally believe in free markets, we ship raw materials to you without protectionist tariffs or duties, which you can then process in Mexico with its cheap labour, and sell the final product in the United States.
Unfortunately, sometimes aspects of the American government like to violate the NAFTA agreement and slap import duties and tariffs on our exports – illegally stealing revenue from our industry and tax dollars from all Canadians.
Other than that, Otep, good call. ;^P
Love it or hate it, Canada and the United States are conjoined twins who each could not survive without the other.
It would be like if the US had simply split into two countries instead of having the Civil War, and over the internet today Union Americans were arguing with Confederate Americans about who had it better off than who and why.
Union Americans would brag about their Blacktino, lesbian President and how socially progressive they are, while Confederate Americans would call them commies and brag about how free they are with their AK-47s and voluntary taxation.
In Mexico, the Spanish Americans would be devising elaborate underground railroads to sneak through the Confederated States, into the United States.
And in Canada, the British and French Americans would be bickering about whether public daycare service falls under Federal or Provincial jurisdiction – an issue over which, surprising nobody at all, the French threaten to separate.
Seriously though it still blows my mind that Obama actually is President.
ElbowStrike
That isn’t cking in the mugshot as the article states. He also didn’t try and sell the bong on ebay. Very inaccurate.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
and I get so tired of hearing pothead talk about how less damaging pot is. The potheads I know don’t have a job, live on welfare, breed kid after kid, and complain that the world is out to get them.[/quote]
Those are the potheads you know about. You’d be surprised just who smokes pot.
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
But all the folks on here that are up in arms can certainly make use of their rights and spend some time gather signatures and putting in some work to get their pot legalized.[/quote]
That’s true.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Because at the crux of it for me, I don’t care. here are other thing I don’t care about: France, hip hop music, new country music, cole slaw, competitive figure skating. most of these things are legal, but if someone outlawed them I wouldn’t shed a tear.[/quote]
Will you sign my petition to make France illegal?
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
and I get so tired of hearing pothead talk about how less damaging pot is. The potheads I know don’t have a job, live on welfare, breed kid after kid, and complain that the world is out to get them.
Those are the potheads you know about. You’d be surprised just who smokes pot.[/quote]
How many times are you going to say this? Or did you forget you said it?
Fully agree with you though. Many more of my moms friends smoke pot than my friends. And they are generally successful business professionals in their 60’s and 70’s.
Looks like Kellogg’s stock took a big hit after dropping Phelps
[quote]Makavali wrote:
OctoberGirl wrote:
and I get so tired of hearing pothead talk about how less damaging pot is. The potheads I know don’t have a job, live on welfare, breed kid after kid, and complain that the world is out to get them.
Those are the potheads you know about. You’d be surprised just who smokes pot.[/quote]
They must be selling it then. The cost of pot now a days is way to much for any welfare recipient. If they smoke daily their enter check would go to pot with nothing left over for munchies, if you get them.
[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Looks like Kellogg’s stock took a big hit after dropping Phelps
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_blog/kelloggstock
[/quote]
So there may be some credibility to the munchie theory after all. Who would have thought!