davidylan:

another fool sneaking around other people's accounts. I must be your god . . . i dont know you and yet you remember a photo i had here over 8 months ago when we've never even spoken or come across each other before? And you cry that others shld get a life? maybe you shld get one too . . .

Who is sneaking on this hopeless orangutan's account. This show of shame brought the spotlight on you https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-507652.0.html

Ode do I need to speak with you to know how your signaless satellite dish ears look like when you were funkifying your spherical double-door fridge like girlfriend all over this forum. Oponu oshi!

denzel2009:

Who is sneaking on this hopeless orangutan's account. This show of shame brought the spotlight on you https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-507652.0.html

Ode do I need to speak with you to know how your signaless satellite dish ears look like when you were funkifying your spherical double-door fridge like girlfriend all over this forum. Oponu oshi!

that happened almost a yr ago. Spiked has moved on and so have i. In that time, a baby born then has already started to crawl, talk and cut her teeth. To think that there are still folks like you who are unable to move past what was essentially NEVER even about them in the first place that is not just shameful but says a lot about your own empty lives. At no time in that thread where you acknowledged or noticed . . . how come you're still using those pages to masturbate?
In that time, i have been absent from here for over 7 months . . . and you still have the energy to go dredging that up? 

Why dont you print it out, frame it and sell it. lol u'd make some money. What a fool. Get a life dude, its much better than hanging around subways. What have you got next? Pages from 2006?  ode.

davidylan:

that happened almost a yr ago. Spiked has moved on and so have i. In that time, a baby born then has already started to crawl, talk and cut her teeth. To think that there are still folks like you who are unable to move past what was essentially NEVER even about them in the first place that is not just shameful but says a lot about your own empty lives. At no time in that thread where you acknowledged or noticed . . . how come you're still using those pages to self-service?
In that time, i have been absent from here for over 7 months . . . and you still have the energy to go dredging that up? 

Why dont you print it out, frame it and sell it. lol u'd make some money. What a fool. Get a life dude, its much better than hanging around subways. What have you got next? Pages from 2006?  ode.

Pele o accurate timekeeper, been absent for 7months, who cares if you never made it back here.

denzel2009:

Pele o accurate timekeeper, been absent for 7months, who cares if you never made it back here.

that's my point dude. until you fire breathing rabid dog came here trying to get noticed . . . i could care less if you existed. Why shld i then bother if you noticed i'd been away? Did i ever at any point quote you, speak to you or treat you like you mattered?
Frankly dude . . . you must have cared . . . it must have taken you some precious minutes to dig that old thread up. I'm sure it wasnt just sitting around waiting for today right?

Big fool. Go sidon for doti. Even when i want to argue, i pick my fights . . . wasting time with dregs like you who are essentially able to eat thanks to living abroad by accident of birth is nauseating.

davidylan:

that's my point dude. until you fire breathing rabid dog came here trying to get noticed . . . i could care less if you existed. Why shld i then bother if you noticed i'd been away? Did i ever at any point quote you, speak to you or treat you like you mattered?
Frankly dude . . . you must have cared . . . it must have taken you some precious minutes to dig that old thread up. I'm sure it wasnt just sitting around waiting for today right?

Big fool. Go sidon for doti. Even when i want to argue, i pick my fights . . . wasting time with dregs like you who are essentially able to eat thanks to living abroad by accident of birth is nauseating.

its obvious you lack home training or those responsible for training you lacked experience, continue with that attitude you'll be wan[i]k[/i]ing to your toxic Phd soon.

shooze:

I have followed this thread with amusement because its so easy to sit in judgement of others when we are no better. I was an addict for  8 years and it was Not because I was irresponsible it was rather to escape from horrors I would rather not discuss here and I know how difficult it is to quit the addiction. No one wants to wake up lying in their own vomit or not knowing if u will even wake up . I was able to break it not because of any rehab but by his grace. For sagamite your constant repitition of the word cretin is beginning to make me wonder if you are not a crackhead yourself. @ davidlyan you are a "christian" all I can say to you is what would Jesus say?
@ coogar and his crew thank you

If you ever for one second think I can ever be a crackhead, then there are only 2 possibilities:

1) Maybe you are lying and you are still off your head high on the shitzo you took.

2) The shitzo rabidly damaged alot of your brain cells.

Now, so did the drugs you took solve your problems or added to it? Has it wiped away your horrors or added its own horrors?

So where is the sense in ever taking drugs? How is it not irresponsible? Is it not senseless for someone that has horrors to add to those horrors?

Sorry, mate, I can never get it! I will rather find other ways to deal with my horrors than add to them. If worst comes to worst and there is no way to deal with the horrors, I will live with it.

Fcking say "NO" to drugs!

Your ranting honestly mean nothing to me. At least for a crackhead I can type a sentence in plain English without resorting to swearing or spewing out wannabe gangster lingo like an addict undergoing cold turkey treatment. Secondly I am a babe not a dude and when you suffer abuse from the age of 11 you can then come and we will repeat this conversation.
We can't all be superhuman like Sagamite the Great

The key to activating the will of addicts, which is all that has ever worked, isn't sympathy, commisseration, medical plans but shaming and condemnation. The addict works overtime to remove that shame and self-medicates to keep it at bay. That's why society must turn it on all the stronger, and back it up with calls for real accountability. Justifying drugs under any circumstance will never solve the problem.
There is no ifs,no buts.Say no to drugs under any circumstance.
Never seen the good it did any man/woman.

Sagamite:


Now, so did the drugs you took solve your problems or added to it? Has it wiped away your horrors or added its own horrors?

So where is the sense in ever taking drugs? How is it not irresponsible? Is it not senseless for someone that has horrors to add to those horrors?

Sorry, mate, I can never get it! I will rather find other ways to deal with my horrors than add to them. If worst comes to worst and there is no way to deal with the horrors, I will live with it.

Fcking say "NO" to drugs!

you might have issue with the language and attitude but the truth lies therein.there is no two ways about it.

mbulela:

The key to activating the will of addicts, which is all that has ever worked, isn't sympathy, commisseration, medical plans but shaming and condemnation. The addict works overtime to remove that shame and self-medicates to keep it at bay. That's why society must turn it on all the stronger, and back it up with calls for real accountability. Justifying drugs under any circumstance will never solve the problem.
There is no ifs,no buts.Say no to drugs under any circumstance.
Never seen the good it did any man/woman.

very unintelligent thing to say. . . .an addict is helpless & fragile.
they need all the sympathy in the world to help them get their groove back. . . . . . . . .shaming and condemnation will only chase them far away from the help they should be getting.

shooze:

Your ranting honestly mean nothing to me. At least for a crackhead I can type a sentence in plain English without resorting to swearing or spewing out wannabe gangster lingo like an addict undergoing cold turkey treatment. Secondly I am a babe not a dude and when you suffer abuse from the age of 11 you can then come and we will repeat this conversation.
We can't all be superhuman like Sagamite the Great

pay no attention to the buffoon. he used to dwell in the real world but he got evicted last week.

coogar:

very unintelligent thing to say. . . .an addict is helpless & fragile.
they need all the sympathy in the world to help them get their groove back. . . . . . . . .shaming and condemnation will only chase them far away from the help they should be getting.

pay no attention to the buffoon. he used to dwell in the real world but he got evicted last week.

must you reply every post with an insult? it does not make your argument or point of view more intelligent or factual.
state your opinion and move on.
shaming and condemnation may be a harsh one but romanticizing drugs and addiction will never help addicts.
they do not need all the sympathy in the world.they need to be told that drugs can never be justified under any condition while being given the help they need but certainly not sympathy.that is my view.

Nothing changes a life like love. No one is saying you should pat addicts on the back but shaming and condemning them often leads to suicide because your fragile self esteem is further bashed or you spiral down more into the addiction as you feel that is your only source of solace. I don't like going all spiritual but when the adulterous woman was brought to Jesus what do you think turned her life around , the people shouting stone her or the kindness Jesus showed her. Why did Jesus not shout at zacheus and say look at a thief in the trees and rather decided to eat at his place giving him a sense of self worth. When you are an addict your sense of worth is greatly diminished. Tough love helps but guy shaming and condemning does not do jack

Can we start the tough love by not justifying drug addiction under any circumstance?

Why are you guys bothering your heads about this matter? Its simple, just draw any lesson you like from her life. If you think her lifestyle of drugs and alcohol abuse is great then follow her lead and get the same results (you will end up in a box in no time) If you think it is a bad example then leave healthy and you stand a chance of making it to 90yrs. Its a simple matter of choice, she made her's, lets all make ours.

I wont stop you from making your choice but don't expect me to shed a bucketful of tears when the bills come due. Freedom has a small "import duty" called RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR CHOICES.

shooze:

Your ranting honestly mean nothing to me. At least for a crackhead I can type a sentence in plain English without resorting to swearing or spewing out wannabe gangster lingo like an addict undergoing cold turkey treatment. Secondly I am a babe not a dude and when you suffer abuse from the age of 11 you can then come and we will repeat this conversation.
We can't all be superhuman like Sagamite the Great

Wow! So it is only gangsters that swear? Drugs are surely not good for brain cells.

You still have not answered my question, I will ask again:

"Now, so did the drugs you took solve your problems or added to it? Has it wiped away your horrors or added its own horrors?

So where is the sense in ever taking drugs? How is it not irresponsible? Is it not senseless for someone that has horrors to add to those horrors?"

It is not about superhuman, it is about sense!

coogar:

pay no attention to the buffoon. he used to dwell in the real world but he got evicted last week.

Shut up, cretin!

What you need to be explaining is how your moronic conjecture that majority of Americans take pot everyday when stats show that less than 16m take it in a month.

Spewing dump shyt makes you vulnerable to intellectual flogging!

Sagamite:

Shut up, cretin!

What you need to be explaining is how your moronic conjecture that majority of Americans take pot everyday when stats show that less than 16m take it in a month.

Spewing dump shyt makes you vulnerable to intellectual flogging!

lord of mercy. . . . . .this rhesus monkey is still alive? i thought i had put you to eternal rest last night.
how much irritated are you? how much in your face am i? your claim to be knowledgeable has been demystified. you laboratory buffoon!

mumu, more than 40% of americans had taken marijuana as at 2004. 2.1m virgin users per year since then and i expect the 2.1 million figure to increase year after year(arithmetic progression) because of the popularity of weed. . . . .mr sagamite the obdurate fella, my projection says 50% americans use weed as we speak.

coogar:

lord of mercy. . . . . .this rhesus monkey is still alive? i thought i had put you to eternal rest last night.
how much irritated are you? how much in your face am i? your claim to be knowledgeable has been demystified. you laboratory buffoon!

mumu, more than 40% of americans had taken marijuana as at 2004. 2.1m virgin users per year since then and i expect the 2.1 million figure  to increase year after year(arithmetic progression) because of the popularity of weed. . . . .mr sagamite the obdurate fella, my projection says 50% americans use weed as we speak.

You are a mooron!

Where did you get your cretinous claim that 50% of Americans take marijuana a day when stats show less than 5% take it every month in 2008!

In your failed education, is that how you demystify? 

You projected like a buffoon?

Sagamite:

You are a mooron!
Where did you get your cretinous claim that 50% of Americans take marijuana a day when stats show less than 5% take it every month in 2008!

In your failed education, is that how you demystify? 
You projected like a buffoon?

you are a laboratory asswax. . . . . .where is the stat that said less than 5% are taking marijuana in the whole of america as of 2008?
were you born brain-dead?

[size=8pt][size=8pt]SO/[/size][/size]

if pickin say na death dey hungry am, give am rat poison

coogar:

you are a laboratory asswax. . . . . .where is the stat that said less than 5% are taking marijuana in the whole of america as of 2008?
were you born brain-dead?

Mooron, that was suppose to read less than 50%.

Where did you get your cretinous claim that 50% of Americans take marijuana a day when stats show less than 50% take it every month in 2008!

Only 15.2m took it in one month. How did your mooronic projection come to over 50% take marijuana every month?

In your failed education, is that how you demystify?

You projected like a buffoon?

Sagamite:

Mooron, that was suppose to read less than 50%.

Where did you get your cretinous claim that 50% of Americans take marijuana a day when stats show less than 50% take it every month in 2008!

Only 15.2m took it in one month. How did your mooronic projection come to over 50% take marijuana every month?

In your failed education, is that how you demystify?

You projected like a buffoon?

when i called you a cuntbucket last night, many thought it was too harsh.
did you even read the pathetic article of the link that you posted?

The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older.

i am sure you are mega-daft to understand what that means. . . . .it means the survey excluded institutionalized population(correctional facilities, detention centres, immigration camps, juvenile institutions, etc) and these lots are more likely to use marijuana than the other divide.
of course in 2008, at the twilight of bush's administration - the survery would have been doctored to dumb down the use of illicit drug use in united states so those bastardo republicans would get a chance to compete with obama!

i can understand using the statistics of noninstitutionalized population for employment rate(as prisoners are not expected to work anyways), but using this same stats to do a survey on drug and alcohol abuse is logically obtuse. null and void. the bulk of the people using drugs/alcohol are in the institutionalized population. the statistics you plucked basically catered for the more law abiding citizens of america - not the people who actually use!

then again, the survey said it interviewed 67,500 each year. . . . .i won't be surprised if this 67,500 persons are all squeaky clean(no criminal records). the people with criminal records in the states are not regarded as citizens. they don't vote, they can't get a job, etc. if you have any common sense at all, this should tell you the statistics will be skewed towards the barest minimum rather than the true value as the people who are normally expected to use have been excluded.

sagamite, like i have been telling you. . . .i am your rabbi. . . . . .stupidity platelets ran through your veins and you went and pluck some dodgy report on the internet to flash in my face. i laugh in sagamite.
you are the microcosm of what i am when it comes to intellectual debates. go home and learn the difference between institutionalized and non-institutionalized population and then apply it in the topic of discussion, you ruminant animal.

i am sure the sodomite will come here now and say he knows what institutionalized population was and yet he had based his stats on the total number of people living in the states - letz see how asswipe sagamite digs himself out of this grave. saga-dumb, over to you.

Hopefully this back and forth stops soon. It was entertaining at first, now not so much.

coogar:

when i called you a cuntbucket last night, many thought it was too harsh.
did you even read the pathetic article of the link that you posted?

The survey is the primary source of information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco in the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States aged 12 years old or older.

i am sure you are mega-daft to understand what that means. . . . .it means the survey excluded institutionalized population(correctional facilities, detention centres, immigration camps, juvenile institutions, etc) and these lots are more likely to use marijuana than the other divide.
of course in 2008, at the twilight of bush's administration - the survery would have been doctoredto dumb down the use of illicit drug use in united states so those bastardo republicans would get a chance to compete with obama!

i can understand using the statistics of noninstitutionalized population for employment rate(as prisoners are not expected to work anyways), but using this same stats to do a survey on drug and alcohol abuse is logically obtuse. null and void. the bulk of the people using drugs/alcohol are in the institutionalized population. the statistics you plucked basically catered for the more law abiding citizens of america - not the people who actually use!

then again, the survey said it interviewed 67,500 each year. . . . .i won't be surprised if this 67,500 persons are all squeaky clean(no criminal records). the people with criminal records in the states are not regarded as citizens. they don't vote, they can't get a job, etc. if you have any common sense at all, this should tell you the statistics will be skewed towards the barest minimum rather than the true value as the people who are normally expected to use have been excluded.

sagamite, like i have been telling you. . . .i am your [i]rabbi[/i[. . . . . .stupidity platelets ran through your veins and you went and pluck some dodgy report on the internet to flash in my face. i laugh in sagamite.
you are the microcosm of what i am when it comes to intellectual debates. go home and learn the difference between institutionalized and non-institutionalized population and then apply it in the topic of discussion, you ruminant animal.

i am sure the sodomite will come here now and say he knows what institutionalized population was and yet he had based his stats on the total number of people living in the states - letz see how asswipe sagamite digs himself out of this grave. saga-dumb, over to you.

You are a cretin!

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel (which admittedly is next to the surface)?

Abeg make I laugh for a few seconds before I quash you!







YE! YE! YE! My belle o, my head o!

So the stats exclude institutionalised people?

And your point is?

There are 100m people in US that are institutionalised? Or a few thousands?

How does your moronic point potentially change the facts significantly?

How will it move it from only 15.2m take pot every month to 15.2m take pot every day? Before we even talk about half. 

Ode!

Intellectual flogging!

Try again, how did you arrive at the moronic point that 50% of Americans take pot every day.

Sagamite:

You are a cretin!

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel (which admittedly is next to the surface)?

Abeg make I laugh for a few seconds before I quash you!







YE! YE! YE! My belle o, my head o!

So the stats exclude institutionalised people?

And your point is?

There are 100m people in US that are institutionalised? Or a few thousands?

How does your moronic point potentially change the facts significantly?

How will it move it from only 15.2m take pot every month to 15.2m take pot every day? Before we even talk about half. 

Ode!

Intellectual flogging!

Try again, how did you arrive at the moronic point that 50% of Americans take pot every day.

i knew it. . . . .lord sagamite has turned it into comedy central. daft mind, slow mentality, lack of exposure et al.
must the population of institutionalized uns be 100 million to skew your stats. the stats surveyed 67,500 persons per year. . . .you don't know how many years or how many people were interviewed

you don't know the kind of people that were interviewed(the ones with criminal records or law abiding citizens) and yet your foolish self wants us to take your stats as the gospel. these stats will only be excellent for employment rate or what you will normally not expect prisoners or people in detention camps to take part in - as for the usage of drug - it's a fail.

you can laugh from here till you enter your grave - the link you provided is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of discussion - drug usage!!!
like i have said - you are the microcosm of what i am intellectually.
you disgusting pederast! when your creator was distributing intelligence - you were hiding in the bathroom.

edit. . . .survery covered(2002- 6 yrs (67,500 X 6 =405,0000) less than half-a-million to project the drug usage of america of 300 million people?

saga-dumb is a tool! the number of institutionalized people in california alone is close to 500,000. . . .while i wouldn't expect all those to be using - at least 60-70% of those would be using adulterated marijuana every day. surely, sagamite is a charlatan!

coogar:

i knew it. . . . .lord sagamite has turned into comedy central. daft mind, slow mentality, lack of exposure et al.
must the population of institutionalized uns be 100 million to skew your stats. the stats surveyed 67,500 persons per year. . . .you don't know how many years or how many people were interviewed

you don't know the kind of people that were interviewed(the ones with criminal records or law abiding citizens) and yet your foolish self wants us to take your stats as the gospel. these stats will only be excellent for employment rate or what you will normally not expect prisoners or people in detention camps to take part in - as for the usage of drug - it's a fail.

you can laugh from here till you enter your grave - the link you provided is absolutely irrelevant to the topic of discussion - drug usage!!!
like i have said - you are the microcosm of what i am intellectually.
you disgusting pederast! when your creator was distributing intelligence - you were hiding in the bathroom.

edit. . . .survery covered 6 yrs(67,500 X 6 =405,0000) less than half-a-million to project the drug usage of america of 300 million people? saga-dumb is a tool! the number of institutionalized people in california alone is close to 500,000. . . .while i wouldn't expect all those to be using - at least 60-70% of those would be using adulterated marijuana every day. surely, sagamite is a charlatan!

Oh, cretin, so if the official stats does not back you up, then it is wrong.

So the statisticians that will do such a survey for the US government will not know how to do Sampling and make sure it is reflective of the society?

Abeg make I laugh for a few seconds before I quash you!







YE! YE! YE! My belle o, my head o!

So the statistics sample utilised by professional statisticians is unlikely to be reflective of the US society but the institutionalised population is likely to?

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?

person! When education is poor is when people make such moronic challenges like when you were also challenging the well known concept of Power.

This is intellectual flogging! 

Try again, how did you arrive at the moronic point that 50% of Americans take pot every day.

Sagamite:

Oh, cretin, so if the official stats does not back you up, then it is wrong.

So the statisticians that will do such a survey for the US government will not know how to do Sampling and make sure it is reflective of the society?

Abeg make I laugh for a few seconds before I quash you!







YE! YE! YE! My belle o, my head o!

So the statistics sample utilised by professional statisticians is unlikely to be reflective of the US society but the institutionalised population is likely to?

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?

person! When education is poor is when people make such moronic challenges like when you were also challenging the well known concept of Power.

This is intellectual flogging! 

Try again, how did you arrive at the moronic point that 50% of Americans take pot every day.

your genetical wiring is distorted. . . . .i am not even sure you reason well. . . .this is why there are more smileys in your post than the message itself.

the statisticians that will do a sampling for the united states government will not know how to sample? this is the most idiotic comment i have ever read on this forum. sagamite. . . .thank you for exposing how ridiculously moronic you can get. of course, it depends on the kind of conclusion the government want them to produce. this is why it's called statistics. . . . .it can be manipulated to say anything.

crikey me, these statisticians sampled non-institutionalized folks in the states. . . .the law abiding citizens who have probably never seen marijuana before. they left out the real dregs of the society. the ones who were actually influenced by marijuana abuse to commit crime. . .the ones in the police station, the ones who are receiving medical help for their substance abuse. . . .and you expect me to take this report of yours seriously?

saga-dumb, use your head na. . . . . .then again, this report is inconclusive. it's the first report of the whole survey. i don't have an idea of the number of reports they intend to release to tell the full story of their dodgy survey. a survey brilliantly doctored to let people think americans aren't drugs heads. you have to be born brain-dead to take anything reported here seriously. the number of institutionalized persons in the state of california alone is more than all the people that have done the interview on this survey - that alone should tell you this particular link is irrelevant to the debate.

mr saga-dumb. . . . .think. don't use your smileys to distract others that are following this thread.
intelligent people don't abuse smileys - when i see more smileys than texts, it simply tells me the author has nothing credible to say.
if you want to waste bandwidth - go ahead but your mind will be a terrible thing to waste.

lest i forget - i am still your rabbi.

coogar:

your genetical wiring is distorted. . . . .i am not even sure you reason well. . . .this is why there are more smileys in your post than the message itself.

the statisticians that will do a sampling for the united states government will not know how to sample? this is the most idiotic comment i have ever read on this forum. sagamite. . . .thank you for exposing how ridiculously moronic you can get. of course, it depends on the kind of conclusion the government want them to produce. this is why it's called statistics. . . . .it can be manipulated to say anything.

crikey me, these statisticians sampled non-institutionalized folks in the states. . . .the law abiding citizens who have probably never seen marijuana before. they left out the real dregs of the society. the ones who were actually influenced by marijuana abuse to commit crime. . .the ones in the police station, the ones who are receiving medical help for their substance abuse. . . .and you expect me to take this report of yours seriously?

saga-dumb, use your head na. . . . . .then again, this report is inconclusive. it's the first report of the whole survey. i don't have an idea of the number of reports they intend to release to tell the full story of their dodgy survey. a survey brilliantly doctored to let people think americans aren't drugs heads. you have to be born brain-dead to take anything reported here seriously. the number of institutionalized persons in the state of california alone is more than all the people that have done the interview on this survey - that alone should tell you this particular link is irrelevant to the debate.

mr saga-dumb. . . . .think. don't use your smileys to distract others that are following this thread.
intelligent people don't abuse smileys - when i see more smileys than texts, it simply tells me the author has nothing credible to say.
if you want to waste bandwidth - go ahead but your mind will be a terrible thing to waste.

lest i forget - i am still your rabbi.

You are reetarded!

How moronic can you be to assume anyone not in jail is law abiding?

How moronic can you get to believe only criminals and dregs take marijuana? 

person, is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?

I told you this would be casual.

Sagamite:

You are reetarded!

you are a tool!

How moronic can you be to assume anyone not in jail is law abiding?

if you are not convicted, you are innocent.
innocent until proven guilty - this is america we are talking about not your village in nigeria where everyone is not law abiding.
republicans would have obviously targeted citizens with no criminal records - to prove their regime did well in curbing drug/alcohol usage.
i mean - who leaves out institutionalized population when the topic of debate is hard drugs? isn't this obvious the people behind this survey were purposely trying to skew the statistics that the bush administration did a good job in reducing the number of substance abusers to the barest minimum?

How moronic can you get to believe only criminals and dregs take marijuana? 

criminals will definitely use more than the others. some of them became prisoners in the first place under the influence!

person, is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?
I told you this would be casual.

sagamite is now clutching at straws o. . . . .
lemme list my points - and you will agree the article you religiously hung on to has no relevance to this debate.

the dregs of the society were not included in this article.
juvenile delinquents were excluded in this article(majority of them are substance users)
the dregs of the society are more likely to use marijuana than the people interviewed by this survey!
the article itself is inconclusive as this is the first report of their survey
the sampling of 400,000 folks is too small to project on 300 million people(california's institutionalized persons alone are more than the sample size)

saga-dumb. . . . for credibility's sake. . . .look for another statistics to drive your points home! the one you provided can never be relevant in this debate. you know it, the people reading this thread by now know it. i am sick and tired of exposing your folly to all and sundry. in a twist of event, i am the one actually helping you to search for what is appropriate in this debate.
you claim to be knowledgeable and yet your periodic brain-farts keep exposing your irrationality.

lest i forget - i am still your rabbi

coogar:

you are a tool!

if you are not convicted, you are innocent.
innocent until proven guilty - this is america we are talking about not your village in nigeria where everyone is not law abiding.
republicans would have obviously targeted citizens with no criminal records - to prove their regime did well in curbing drug/alcohol usage.
i mean - who leaves out institutionalized population when the topic of debate is hard drugs? isn't this obvious the people behind this survey were purposely trying to skew the statistics that the bush administration did a good job in reducing the number of substance abusers to the barest minimum?

criminals will definitely use more than the others. some of them became prisoners in the first place under the influence!

sagamite is now clutching at straws o. . . . .
lemme list my points - and you will agree the article you religiously hung on to has no relevance to this debate.

the dregs of the society were not included in this article.
juvenile delinquents were excluded in this article(majority of them are substance users)
the dregs of the society are more likely to use marijuana than the people interviewed by this survey!
the article itself is inconclusive as this is the first report of their survey
the sampling of 400,000 folks is too small to project on 300 million people(california's institutionalized persons alone are more than the sample size)

saga-dumb. . . . for credibility's sake. . . .look for another statistics to drive your points home! the one you provided can never be relevant in this debate. you know it, the people reading this thread by now know it. i am sick and tired of exposing your folly to all and sundry. in a twist of event, i am the one actually helping you to search for what is appropriate in this debate.
you claim to be knowledgeable and yet your periodic brain-farts keep exposing your irrationality.

lest i forget - i am still your rabbi

God, I am loving this!

This is really how to prove someone is a person! 

So everyone not presently is jail is law abiding?

Even if they have been to prison before? Or they are on trial? Or they have never had enough evidence to prosecute them? 

And because of this they law abiding they will not take marijuana?

Is that how you are scraping at the bottom of your intellectual barrel?

Cretin.

Now lets for a few seconds assume that incredibly moronic logic, and for the sake of your Silverback thinking level assume those in institutions are the drug takes and they take marijuana every 15 minutes, what is the population of people in institutions? 100m? More than 5m?

How does that significantly change the stats that only 15.2m take marijuana every month to your moronic assertion over half of Americans take marijuana every day?

Dumbshit! 

Alpha and what? . . . . . . . . .Say it!

Thread Locked.

Are they going to cremate her or give her a normal burial? I just don't understand the Jewish part of the burial thing.

she was cremated yesterday,at same place as her grand mum.