₦airaland Forum

abeggi, canibus used to thrash this nigga when they were in the horsemen project ish.

davidylan:
morphine, heroin, cannabis, methadone . . . all used in modern medicine yet hyper addictive to the casual user. Most terminal cancer patients can only survive the severe pain in their last days doped on morphine or heroin.

administered in the same form the user takes it? davidylan, i have given you your credits on these pages - you are beginning to slip like the simpleton-in-chief(sagamite)

Sagamite:
You are reetarded!

What quack school are you doing your science that you use conjectures as an argument.

Over 50% of Americans use pot?

What kind of dumb statement is that?

Product of a failed education!

of course they do. . . . .whether they admit it or not is another issue for you to hang yourself nake[i]d[/i]

as at 2004, more than 40% of the population of americans have used it
https://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/images/USEverUsedMarjuanaP.jpg


it's estimated there are 2.1 million virgin users every year. . . .mr sagamite, do the projection and tell me what the numbers would be now.
i hate making you sound like a poof but i really cannot help it.

davidylan:
Come again? Differentiate what from what? A substance with 20% THC content is not much different from one with 90% THC. The difference is how much you need to smoke to get high.

lemme just assume you are not a science student cos if you are. . . .and you think 20% thc content is not different to 90% thc, then it's either you are on a wind-up or just ignorant.

mind you, i have always maintained moderation is the key. virtually every drug is toxic but with moderation and the right dosage, the effects are non-existent or too insignificant to cause any fatality. majority of americans are taking pot everyday and they are unaffected.

Sagamite:
You are a reetard!

There are elements of virtually all drugs that can be useful for medicinal production, that does not mean if you are using them recreationally they are not harmless. Mooron!

You can teach your kids that it is better for them to take crack than to drive with your reetarded logic.

Your brain is still contaminated with faeces due to its location that is why you still do not get the concept of need and balancing with risk.

Mooron, because more people have died at sea than taking crack means crack is not that bad. Professional person!

Worse still you back up your moronic argument with data about absolute numbers. How many youths drive and how many take drugs?

You gut me busting out loud with your "i back my claims with facts". You really are a cretin!

i almost wept when i saw this reply. . . . .lord sagamite boxed into a corner and flipping his tail aimlessly with soft punches and dying embers of light leaving his diseased body.

you are a tool, will always be a tool and if care ain't taken - will die a fool.
the thing is, you keep shifting positions every minute. coogar's points are these. . .

---taking marijuana is not irresponsible. . . .abusing it is the irresponsibility.

now you are saying heroin and lsd are medicinal? were you born a pillock? i have never seen so much tripe come out of the mouth of an adult. makes me think what you call a mouth is actually a cesspit.

how many youths drive and how many take drugs? look at this idiot. . . .even after showing you a graphical image to help in your slow understanding, you still failed to grasp the message behind it. the risks surrounding driving is higher than the risks attached to taking any kind of drugs. now you remember balancing the risks - something i made clear several pages ago that missed your empty vessel you called a head.

you really need help. . . . .davidylan has more braincells than you - at least he's got credible points in this debate. whereas, you as a cow keep screaming reeeeetard, cretin and mor0n - i just hope you were not verbally abused as a child cos the common usage of these words is suspicious.
take it or leave it - you can never engage me in a battle of wits. dem nor born you with that kinda silver spoon - cut the facade.

Sagamite:
You are a cretin!
You provide a video detailing marijuana can have medicinal qualities for people that need treatment to back up a moronic argument that casual marijuana usage is harmless?
Product of a failed education!  
My taking crack is like driving.
That is what they term as a Professional person!

how can the same drug that is harmful also medicinal for people needing treatment? sagamite, it seems you skipped logic class in school. i have always known you as a tool - i just didn't know your tomfoolery has depths jacques cousteau wouldn't dare reach.
you are a laboratory simpleton.

taking crack is as bad as driving. . . . .if you don't like the fact that i am shittting on your head, pull a gun to your head and dieeeee. . . .
another small lecture for a geriatric tool.
https://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2010/05/car-accidents-logo-51opt.jpg

sagamite, i am warming up. . . . .unlike you. . . i back my claims with facts.
yours are backed by screaming like a rhesus monkey on viagra.

i am warming up. . . . . .when next you see me, run for your hopeless life.

Sagamite:
A reetard thinks if you drive it is as bad as taking crack. And he calls himself intellectual.

you are a tool. . . . . .a hopeless tool who needs to die to be reborn cos you are a waste of human flesh.
read me well. . . . .the risk surrounding driving is the same risk as taking crack. people die driving, people die taking crack.
if your brain-cells cannot process that - then you need to donate your brain - somebody else will find a better use.

Sagamite:
You are reetarded!
That is all you got after I shredded your argument that Marijuana is harmless? Was that your intellectual contribution?  

Foool, more to come from your Alpha and Omega!

you can go hang yourself, old tool. . . .
marijuana is harmless!

[flash=425,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7bvFyEPOH8?version=3&hl=en_GB"[/flash]

another lecture, puddenhead! just another one.

viewlekan:
I have read some of the posts on this thread and have come to two conclusions:
1. Taking drugs aint good for you- Simples! I dont care how some posters try to justify their claims. It is not rocket science what Cocaine, heroein etc does to the human mind and the effects on our wellbeing. Some posters here are either reading too many left-wing blogs (and as a result coming to conclusions they do not understand themselves just to look cool) OR they are simply in denial and bringing up false arguements to explain behaviours they themselves engage in.

no one is saying taking drugs is good. . . . . .but some people out of their carelessness or the environment they were bred picked up the habit. . . became addicted to it. . . .so what do you do to them? condemn them, put them against the wall and have them shot?

Sagamite:
You are reetarded!

Who are you trying to Bshit? Sagamite? Your own God? You are trying to Bshit Sagamite, your God?

You are dumb.

You said Marijuana is harmless, and with the right dosage it is not addictive!

Cretin, you did not say Marijuana with the right dosage is harmless.

Now who is your teacher that Marijuana is harmful? Foool!

this old-for-nothing sad coffee-shop pinhead won't stop embarrassing himself on a public forum.
go and lie down - your acclaimed intelligence is a myth - i have smashed that myth into atoms.
i am your rabbi - will forever be. half the cube-root of my intelligence quotient is beyond you. if the gist is around orobo vs lepa. . . . .you are free to claim whatever you want in such senseless and meaningless ramble - but where intellectuals sit down to talk. . . . .you better be a maiguard outside with rain battering your forehead. pound for pound, you will be my official manservant who hand-washes my undies.

Ibime:
When people talk of Cannabis, they need to differentiate between regular weed (hi-grade) and skunk (purple haze). One is as harmless as alchohol whilst the other is as deadly as LSD.

As for those with nothing better to do than argue for eons about others expressing their regret at the passing of Amy Winehouse, get a life you lonely neurotic sados.

the resident nincompoop of nairaland(sagamite) doesn't know that. by the time i am done with him, he will commit hara-kiri.
i am warming up. . . .

davidylan:
Really? Even though THC binds to cannabinoid receptor type 1? CB1 having been shown to crosstalk with opioid receptor u₃?

then you are talking about the low-grade ones. . . . .please differentiate.

BlueDiva:
What really is the issue here?
Amy was talented but wasted her life, so what?

We have extremely talented professors, doctors and lawyers who lead irresponsible private lives.
That doesn"t mean they are less respected in their fields.

Someone even made a dumb statement that Amy couldnt solve an equation? How stupiid can people get?
Amy is a singer dummy, she doesn"t need to solve equations to be talented.

It's sad that this beautiful thread created to celebrate Amy has been desecrated by iidiots.
RIP AMY WINEHOUSE.

[img]http://chzgifs.files./2011/07/hes-a-witch-can-we-burn-him.gif[/img]

ElRazur:
That's the problem, you already pick to see NO PROBLEM. On the other hand, I beg to differ, hence why I said before that it may be a mild addiction. If it isn't he should be able to stop. One of the known characteristics of THC is how people tend to use it for long period and it becomes something of an "enjoyment

there's nothing called mild addiction. you are either addicted or not. of course, abuse of cannabis will have fatal effects(this is not my argument). . .i said if the required dosage is administered - there can be no problems. cannabis is only psychologically addictive, not physical like the other drugs.

Please compare an apple for an apple, and not an apple to a Blackberry Storm! Virginity, sex and food aren't the same as THC.

se[i]x[/i] and food aren't the same as thc? how so? is s[i]e[/i]x not a form of enjoyment? or you have never heard of s[i]e[/i]x addicts?

Ask any addict to describe their addiction and it is along the lines of words that describe "enjoyment" - Euphoria, feeling good, calm, enhanced senses etc.

same as [i]s[/i]ex addicts.

Can we try and stay on course please. You are going off course. Your original point is that Cannabis isn't harmful, even when there are more scientific paper saying it is.

my original point is responsible use of cannabis isn't harmful. it is only when people abuse it that they might see it's side effects.
there's a difference between using it moderately and abusing it.

ElRazur:
Coogar
Come on now, how can you be "quoting" biggie in a serious debate? Do you "bleep the police" too because NWA talk so shey?

but biggie's statement is common sense. . . . .every individual must know his threshold. we could be twin brothers and you can down 9 bottles of guinness and my limit is just a glass of it. if i then try to copy you - i will make a tool out of myself. so every user must know his/her threshold. it's not a difficult ask.
the same way i know 1 wrap of eba is enough for my stomach is the same way i must determine the amount of weed i can ingest.
el razur, know your weight.

Look all you are citing, at best is an anecdotal evidence.  Even looking at your "boss" that you gave as your ultimate example, I think that in itself is a form of mild addiction. Why is your "boss" finding it hard to completely stop from when he was a teenager?

it's not an addiction. it's just something he loves doing. are you a s[i]e[/i]x addict? when did you break your virginity? why haven't you stopped since then?
apply that in this realm and see. . . . . .

Anyway, based on research and publications THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) present in weed is harmful.

caffeine in your coffee is also harmful. . . . .sugar in food(candys, chocolates, etc) are harmful. weed is controlled because the government criminalized it.
people of the world have been using cannabis for thousands of years ago. . . .the gateway drug theory too is invalid. . . .scientifically false. to say most drug users start with cannabis is the same as all r@pists started with mast[i]u[/i]rbation. you are then saying every individual who has w@nked before will r@pe later.

owo2390:
There's no conclusive evidence on the noxiousness of weed. But weed has many positive effects that medical marijuana is legal in many states.

Also, marijuana was banned in the 1930s, then, no one was doing any ground breaking research on the effects of marijuana. Marijuana was banned because the tobacco company's lobbyists used scare tactics to scare many people into believing marijuana was bad. Furthermore, alcohol kills more people than marijuana. And marijuana is legal in the Netherlands and the country is thriving, and doing better than most other countries.

The only downside to marijuana is that it's a gateway drug. That's bad.

From personal experience, I lived with a former drug-dealer in college, he was in honors classes, smoked regularly and did really well in school. The major downside to weed consumption in my friend was that the weed made him lazy. No psychosis.

I have no first hand experience with the substance because I don't smoke. But i have friends who do and they are the nicest, smartest, people out there.

Just saying my piece.

but according to lord sagamite. . . .all your friends are irresponsible.

Sagamite:
Oh, I am going to have fun with you on NL! You are easy meat due to your immense dumbness.  

I am your God!

Marijuana is harmless?

Foool: http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm

What is the point of taking a thing that does such to you if you don't need it?

if the right dosage is administered, you dumbo!
right dosage. . . . .not excessive users.  try another ish.

but while you are at it. . . . . .more lectures for your illiterate rump
p.s. after each lecture, bow and kiss my feet!

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/19/is-marijuana-addictive-it-depends-how-you-define-addiction/

ElRazur:
Coogar.
What is the "required dosage"

it varies from individual to individual.
in the words of biggie "know your weight"

You claim Marijuana isn't harmful yet it is a controlled substance or illegal in many parts of the world.

You claim it isn't harmful yet there is a high incidence of psychosis amongst smokers. (Especially those who are dependant on it)

Look, Weed do have some benefits (those who suffer from Arthritis claim it is soothing and help their inflammatory disorder) however there are chemicals present in it that causes a lot of harm or associated with harm at least. As it stand so far there are more research that supports the stance marijuana is more harmful.

but this is the only drug people are clamouring to decriminalize cos the addiction level is even less than 10% even when you overuse it.
marijuana is harmless if taken judiciously. my boss is an example. he uses it and comes off it at will - with no addiction and he has been using it since his teenage years.

marijuana's withdrawal will only cause cravings(just like cigarettes and sex) not physically addictive as the others which would cause nausea, shaking, cold sweats and make withdrawal symptoms unbearable. the addiction is psychological and this is manageable.

chamotex:
Again Dudu will disagree . . . he made us believe he was the next big thing

so diaby is zidane?

Sagamite:
Lets examine your new idiotic argument, so marijuana is not a psychotic drug, it is harmless?
What kind of mooron are you FFS?

you keep getting worse by the day. . . . .i have told you. . . , bow down, kiss my feet, call me your rabbi.

is marijuana harmful? no

for the most part, there really is no physical withdrawal in marijuana; no detox symptoms for quitting marijuana. with other drugs, such as alcohol or painkillers, there are very real and sometimes even dangerous withdrawal symptoms that can occur during the detox process. but with marijuana, there really are no such problems. so this would tend to point to the idea that marijuana is not addictive(unless when heavy dosage is administered).

taking the required dosage will not bring about any addiction.  mr sagamite, another lecture for your illiterate rump.
you are a semi-illiterate. . . . .and people like you are the worst to deal with. . . . .for a stark illiterate, he digests everything said to him right or wrong but at least he still gains some wheat. . . . . .for laboratory pinheads like you. . . . .you think you are literate but then you are ignorant. . . .so you mix the wheat for the chaff and gain nothing. . . .

davidylan:
False. Marijuana at the "right dose" over a long period of time is addictive. Methadone is a classic example, it is used to curb heroin addiction and reduce withdrawal symptoms because:

a. it acts on the same opioid receptors as heroin
b. can block heroin effects at certain doses
c. It is far less addictive

how is marijuana related to methadone? i said marijuana is harmless, you are telling me about methadone.
christ, who have i been arguing with?

But it is still highly regulated because taken at the right dose over time will lead to dependence! Go to your hospital . . . see how strictly medicinal drugs like morphine are controlled.

i said marijuana is harmless, stop preaching to me about methadone. marijuana and methadone are not the same ish.,
jeeeeez.

Herein lies the problem. The very first line in your article says this - Hamburgers and French fries could be as addictive as heroin, scientists have claimed.

This article was published 8 yrs ago, in that time there remains no evidence to substantiate this.

Food does not act at the same receptors known to cause dependence . . .

see your comprehension. . . . .food is still addictive. . . .whether it's now as addictive as heroin or other drugs is what is yet to be substantiated.
the degree of addiction is what is in question not the addiction itself.
fellas, read and digest.

Sagamite:
Don't mind the mooron, he would argue against Science.

And we have "contemporary" thinkers that think it is "progress".

see the pubic louse now hiding beneath davidylan's knickers after being bashed into a pulp.
you are a tool. . . . .a rusty tool if i may ask. . . . .i have told you - the next time you put your face where intellectuals gather, i will gut you out like a pig. laboratory nincompoop!

davidylan:
Call me out on this if you pls but lets cut out the BS at this point.

1. Talent is NOT synonymous with intelligence. Amy may have been good enough to hold a note but was certainly not intelligent enough to make the right choices for herself . . . that didnt even require the ability to solve quadratic equations.

2. This excuse above is one that most people who have no cranial capacity for education would definitely be in support of. Send your kids to school . . . they will not become the new Amy winehouse.

Like a talent, intellectual giftedness is usually believed to be an innate, personal aptitude for intellectual activities that cannot be acquired through personal effort
Various ideas about the definition, development, and best ways of identifying intellectual giftedness have been put forward.
Intellectual giftedness may be general or specific. For example, an intellectually gifted person may have a striking talent for mathematics, but not have equally strong language skills.

i have called you out - what's your defense now?

Amy may have been good enough to hold a note but was certainly not intelligent enough to make the right choices for herself . . . that didnt even require the ability to solve quadratic equations.

ray charles - not intelligent
abraham lincoln(us president) was not intelligent
grever cleveland-not intelligent
anthony eden(british prime minister)was not intelligent
adolf hitler not intelligent

davidylan, you are quite an intelligent man but telling me drug users are not intelligent because they took drugs is pushing it. really pushing it.
if this was coming from the resident simpleton aka sagamite, i wouldn't raise an eyebrow but the names i have listed here are people who are leaders of men bar ray charles(a legendary pianist). how do you lead a country without intelligence?

Sagamite:
You are one dumbshit with the lame comparisons we have already seen on this thread.
What is there not to compare in people, dumbo?

you are born silly. . . .you are beyond help.

Some are stewpid, some are smart.
You are the former, I am the latter. Because some people have poorer judgement is an excuse? What kind of dumb argument will you come up with next to excuse drug taking, person?

if you are half as smart as ma pubic hair, i will overdose on methadone. . . .
you and me in a debate? you are a witless apprentice. your intellectual compass is so screwed up, i doubt you can find your way out in a mall.

You are a foool! You said people take marijuana everyday and don't get addicted. I said that is impossible or at least it will fck you up mentally. You are still trying to claim like it is some almost virtually harmless drug with little risk.
Foooooooooool!

or at least? this hilly-billy is shifting position already?
marijuana is harmless if the right dosage is taken, you ninny!
there are articles on this on the web, read it and stop drooling like an epileptic patient.

You are a cretin!
Food is not addictive. Prove it.

food is addictive. . . . i will spoonfeed you this time around.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2707143.stm
i guess it's another food in your face. . . . .scientists claimed this one. . . .the very science you love talking about and you have no grasp of.

I guess that is a challenge when you are poorly educated.
You are dumb. A disorder is not an addiction!
You are a cretin!

poorly educated?  
and yet you don't know the difference between your left and your right.

I am not a demigod, I am your supreme God. Don't ever try and Bshit me with Buka facts you can not prove again. Won o bi da (Dem no born you well) to get away with it. You are a cretin!

and yet i have bashed your cranium so much you have lost your sight.
i am not one of the people you can bully. . . .i love intellectual debates but what i have seen here is the ramblings of a lunatic who cannot discern between his left hand and the right. . . .objectionable nitwits like you are stamped out by my brogues!
half the cube root of my iq is beyond you(fact)!

995 of things on Earth are not like crack! Stop pulling ediotic opinions from your arse!
You are a foool!

and yet more ramblings. . . . . .

Gradual withdrawal is not medicinal and can not be compared to taking aspirin for pain. Another of your asinine comparisons.

and yet the tool shows more mental inadequacies. . . . .subutex is not medicinal?
i'm sure your army of lunatics will be shaking their heads at your sheer idiocy this afternoon.
i have told you - when you see me. . . .you need to run!

You are a cretin, you are now comparing playstation console to crack! People need playstation, facebook, BB! If it is taken from them, they will be psychotic? Mooron!

take it from your spouse and letz see what she becomes in weeks. . . .

You are one massive foool!
You are a serious person!
You are a cretin!

get a grip, asstard. . . .

Maybe at your level are the people you regard as great and that influence you take drugs. Not me, I am way too smart to be that impressionable. I will tell your greats to kiss my arse because I can never put them on a pedestal.

you are not smart! you are nothing but a despicable obnoxious tool. . . . . .what have you invented? what are your qualifications? what do you own? who knows you? see me see palava. . . .an inevitable display of small-minded jobsworthian power. . . . .you this imbecilic immigrant is claiming to be smart? thunder fire your duodenum.

This is coming from the cretin that knows nothing about Power?
You insist on wallowing in your moronic ignorance that you use to challenge science?

Bleep your power and science. . . . .common sense beats them everyday. . . . .

When I tell you that you are a cretin, you will think it is an insult.
So you picked a case that a judge threw out as frivolous as your example?

ruminant animal strikes again. . . . .you told me to show you one case of people vs macdonalds. . . .i showed you one and you are still saying its a frivolous case. . . .was there a case or not? frivolous or unfrivolous?

I don't need to ask if you are reetarded. You are!
You are a cretin, you are yet to prove people need drugs. They choose to take drugs. Foool

they need drugs. drugs have become part of their lives. . . . .when they don't take it - they go into the cold-turkey phase!
read a book, kiss my feet - acclaim me as your messiah, your teacher, your rabbi

You are a cretin! I am your intellectual God! It is Sunday, fcking worship!

if i ever catch you in an intellectual debate ever again, i will pull out your intestines and sell your testicles to mexicans.
you deluded ignoramus!

davidylan:
ok lets disabuse our minds here for a sec.

We seem to have gotten into this idea that because these folks were able to hold a note, they are suddenly "brilliant"? Now that's false pls. Talent is not equivalent to intelligence. You can be talented (an innate ability) at whistling and still be unable to solve a quadratic equation or reason logically (a trait many of your "heros" sadly lack).

but amy doesn't want to solve quadratic equations. . . . .you don't have to be an academic fellow to make it in life. amy and many like her wanted to master their arts. . . . .it's a rare talent to make classical music and wow millions of people all over the world. . .cutting through language barrier, races and tribal bullshyte. . . . .this is where you are getting it wrong. talent is a gift and it's intelligence. . . . .not necessarily academic intelligence.

Secondly, we have EXTREMELY BRILLIANT surgeons, professors, astronauts and artists who dont sniff any powder for inspiration . . . oops i forgot those are boring conformists living in the 18th century. than gawd for Amy winehouse, now we know what its like to live in the 21st century.

and how would you know they didn't take drugs? you want me to give you a list of famous people that used drugs at a particular point in their lives?
are you sure you wanna know? like i keep saying, taking it is not irresponsible. . . . .overdoing it is the irresponsibilty.

lol what was cap28 saying about his parents again? Fela followed his dreams - right to dying of aids and being an embarrassment to his children. Femi and Yeni are who they are today thanks to their mother who single-handedly raised them following her separation from Fela. Yeah Fela is a "legend" . . . famous for dying with aids and marrying 28 wives in one day.

he is still a legend. . . . .fela isn't the first person to die with aids. ordinary folks in your academic circle have also died of aids. let's compare like for like. so because he died of aids now. . . .it means he was unsuccessful or made the wrong choice? i am sure fela would lead the same life over again if permitted.

Sure. Tell her mother that.

she knows herself. without their daughter, they would be living on state benefits.
sadly she had to die. . . . .but without amy, no one would know about them.

our professions may never be frontline news on the daily mail so of course you can accuse us of having boring unsuccessful lives. Its ok. you go ahead and let your daughter be the next amy winehouse . . .

she has her cross to carry. . . . .i can preach from now till eternity, pray from now till eternity. . . . .the ultimate decision still lies on the mother. anini's parents never taught him how to hold a gun. his dad was an evangelist who changed people's lives and yet his son was the most notorious robber in nigeria. go figure!

davidylan:
1. And SO freaking what? They were outstanding musical geniuses who added SQUAT WHAT to our lives? People with boring 9 to 5 jobs are the REASON you have an education, have an improved standard of living. They are the doctors who make sure we live in relative good health, they are the police-officers who maintain law and order, the scientists who put us on the moon, an aircraft in the sky and a car for us to drive (instead of riding horses).
Boring folks with 9-5 jobs are the reason you can turn on your taps in the morning and find water there, they are the reason you have 24 hrs non-stop electricity, have good roads, relatively cheap food and all the regulations that keep you safe. They are the scientists who work hard to improve our lives so we can live long enough to appreciate your "non-conformists". They are also your soldiers who die in relative obscurity so YOU can sit in your little cave and worship drug-addled irresponsible fools with the ability to strum a guitar.

Have some more respect for these folks pls.

davidylan's submission: doctors, lawyers, teachers, lecturers, professors don't use drugs? don't delude yourself - drug users have contributed to the standard of living. . . . .drug usage cuts across every social stratum. . . . .if a doctor dies from drug usage in texas. . . .the news will be local cos nobody cares. . . . . .if amy winehouse dies of the same overdose. . . .it will be well publicized cos she's far famous. just because you have not heard of professional folks dying of o-d does not mean it doesn't happen.

chamotex:
I don't think Duduface will agree with this statement

P.S - Jenkinson's goal was 'world class' though.

miyaichi is the equivalent of pius ikedia in 1989 when ikedia was still in division 3 of the nigerian league

cap28:
Not everyone is cut out to be a boring, robotic conformist  - some of the greatest icons in the world were non conformists who preferred to live life on the edge rather than end up living boring, straight laced lives like you.

100% in agreement.

What would the world have been like if the likes of Jimi Hendrix, JOhn Lennon, Kurt Cobain , Billie Holiday had ended up doing 9 to 5 jobs? - these people were all outstanding musical geniuses, sensitive, intelligent and in the case of John Lennon extremely charismatic but they answered their calling in life which was to become musicians, song writers and entertainers - they also INGESTED A LOT OF DRUGS - but that will never detract from what they acheived in their short lifetimes and what people continue to remember them for - drug taking is one of the hazards of the entertainment industry it takes extreme mental discipline to steer clear ffrom them if you are an entertainer.  The idea that everyone has to end up as doctor or lawyer and live a boring conventional lifestyle is the reason why so many nigerian children end up living empty unfulfilled lives because instead of pursuing their dreams they merely pursue the dreams of their parents - that my friend is not how to raise children -children should be allowed to pursue their own dreams with the parents giving guidance when needed along the way.

i raised these points in the previous pages. all these artistes that took drugs were extremely brilliant, masters of their arts and yet still sniffed the powder. should we now say people with an extremely high intelligent quotients to make classical music are all of a sudden dumb and never knew the effects of their drug use?

Fela Kuti was a musical genius with outstanding talent - he will always be remembered for that  irrespective of his lifestyle - imagine what it would be like if he had had parents like you who would hve insisted that he study to become a doctor or a lawyer, imagine the talent which would have been wasted and imagine the frustration that he would have experienced in an unfulfilled life.

he was actually sent to england to study medicine but he studied music instead @ trinity college. . . .fela followed his dreams and see what came out of it. . . . .he's a legend. far famous than his ex-minister brother(olikoye).

Amy winehouse was a success whether you want to accept it or not, it is no mean feat to sell millions of records around the world by the age of 20, you dismiss her acheivements without even understanding anything about her talent, she wrote her own lyrics and played musical instruments - can you do that? can you write songs that appeal to people from different, races, classes and cultures and make money from doing it as well ?  you call a grammy award meaniningless - really - what have you done in your personal life that tops that?

absolutely!

5 grammy awards, 6 nominations in one night. the highest number of grammy awards ever racked up in one night by a female artiste is more than a success. whether people love her lifestyle or not. she was a success in her line of profession. something we cannot say about many of her detractors on these pages.

Krayola:
Has that chicken called cesc grown some balls and told that silly old man to free him from bondAge? Abi make we send Daddy GO to use holy ghost fire burn am into submission? Mchew!

At least wenger will be able to use that "we're building a new team. . . . " bull excrement excuse again when all your betta players don vamoose. Oshi oda.

mr krayola, i have been looking for your bald head. how you dey?

redsun:
The geezer(sagamite) is so pathetically stupi-d with so much time in his hands to pin point rubbish to back up his inherent dic-kheadednss

well. . . . .he should take his stu-pidity to where pinheads like him celebrate him and not within 50-mile radius of where i am positioned. i have a zero tolerance for born-tools. i can understand if an intellectual calls me a cretin(after all, the intellectual could be smarter than i am) but when a deranged epileptic beast of burden tries to imitate an intellectual, i get automatically ticked.

Sagamite:
You are daft!
There are occasions when other people can not cope with pressure, they don't go and use drugs. How does that mean people need drugs?
So do drug cheats in athletics need drugs because they make a choice to use it to perform as people expect?
Who is the illiterate with such simpleton thinking?

if there's an award for the most pest-natured, priggish, obsessive, half-witted lummox on this forum, you are the winner unopposed. how can you compare other people in this argument? were you born brain-dead? so people's pressure threshold is the same all over? because carl lewis decide not to use drugs means ben johnson cannot use it to boost his performance? drug cheats need the drugs and that is why they use it. you sit your ugly rump behind an hp laptop and you claim to know why people act the way they do. you must be genetically silly!

You still want to be arguing stewpidly against science that marijuana is not addictive.
I ask you again: If people take marijuana everyday will they not be addicted?

crikey me, this gook is so simple-minded. where did i ever say marijuana is not addictive. i said not all users will be addicted to it if they take it. are you such a lummox  that you cannot even decipher simple statements. who said marijuana is not addictive? probably you are suffering from an extensive brain damage.

More like you are imposing daft sense!
Saying food is addictive is purely moronic!
What utter rubbish!

swear down, you need to ask for the refund of the adult education classes you had. food is addictive you conceited donkey. read a book and stop exposing your idiocy on a public forum. unfortunately, i will not spoon-feed you by giving you lectures on it.

You need to go and read the difference between disorder and addiction. Your mental system of applying common sense is obviously in disorder, that does not equate to addiction.

more hollow soundbites from an obnoxious fella.
how has this statement advanced the hokum you keep spitting? you must be an inexcusable twunt.

You are a mooron. So you think you can throw a claim my way that you cannot back up and I would not ask you to?
So you were trying to BShit me? You were trying to BShit Sagamite? Emi Sagamite? Slap yourself! Hot one o!
You are a foooooooool!

who is sagamite? which of the rectums did he crawl out from? i am looking around and i still cannot find you. maybe to the laboratory retaards like you who see you as a demigod, you might have the size of an atom. . . . .but to me, you are another self-opiniated, psychotic donkey who lays claims to prodigious knowledge with no intelligence quotient to match the loud barks. you want to square dance with me in a battle? i will show you up as a witless apprentice.

I tell you again: 99% of things in life is not harmful and addictive.
Don't ever in your daft mind compare crack to 99% of things in life again. That was daft sense!
Fck me!
You are a cretin!

tell me one thing in life that is not harmful and can be addictive? are you a lunatic? tell me one thing that has not led to the death of at least someone on this face of the planet. i don't have time to waste on cyber-thugs who cannot advance their points a jot. . . .you keep repeating the same bullshyte without hitting the nail on it's head. there's a reason people say "too much of everything is bad". . . . .

So prescribing something that people are addicted to when detoxing them make the drugs medicinal? What kind of dunce is this for fck sake?
You really a some shithead mooron!

look at this tool. . . . .prescribing serum(refined venom) to victims of snakebites is not medicinal. giving subutex to drug addicts to cure their addiction is not medicinal? this same subutex can also be used recreationally by opiod users to get high. sagamite, if you ever come across me on this forum, better skip the next wall. you know nothing about this topic - all i keep seeing are the words of a clueless hypocrite who is virginal to the discussion at hand.

You are a dunce!
You justified taking alcohol by saying because I can do without alcohol does not mean others can not. The reason I can do without alcohol is because I don't take it. Your daft arse claims some people need alcohol and I am asking you were they born to need alcohol? Fooooooool!

more idiotic rants by the resident simpleton of nairaland. were you born with driving a car? were you born with playstation console? why do some people stay on it 24/7 if they don't need it. why are people addicted to facebook or blackberry im if they were not born with it? surely, you know nothing about addiction.

You are a mooron! Being intellectual does not mean you can not be irresponsible!

sadly, all the greats(people who have left their marks on this planet) have one addiction or the other and yes they are not irresponsible. the current leaders of united kingdom and the united states have all used drugs at one time in their life - they are not irresponsible. mr sagamite hasn't and yet he is irresponsible. . . .sagamite possesses poop for braincells. . . .you have displayed nothing but sterling idiocy and unsuitability to even engage me in a debate with your delusion.

Invest in a Psychology book to stop speaking like a fooool!
You are a cretin!

the tortuous knots of logic this tomfool ties himself up in. . . . .psychology book? i don't need psychology to learn what is around me, muggins.
this is common sense.

Before I even respond to this moronic statement, let me ask you the dreaded question: Back it up. Show me where people sued mcdonald's for addiction to mcdonald's.

i just love showing up this gorilla as the most brainless member in this yard.
there you go. . . .http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/22/news/companies/mcdonalds/
the next time you see me in a debate. . . . .skip the next wall beside you. . . .i hate leaving grown pinheads with poop on their faces,

You are a cretin!
You claimed they needed it!
And you daft arse contradicted yourself.

and you are a bigger nebbish. . . . . .

Sagamite:
So you admit it is not a "need"? It is a carefree attitude in societies where people are well informed?

to which i replied . . .

coogar:
it's a bit of both. . . . sometimes they need to for the required level of performance and sometimes they just need it to step down.

don't distort the facts. . . .everything is well-documented. you shallow-minded, ignorant twerp!

No one needs crack! There is no biological urge telling you you must take crack for the first time, it is a flipping choice. Fooool!

the only logical statement in your rubble of poop.

of course no one needs to take crack at first. . . .but kids still do out of environment(peer pressure) or "feel-cool" factor. . . .and the reasons they do vary from person to person. kane has good parent, abel does not have parents, raised amongst older drug fiends and influenced by his environment, . . should we now blame abel for the environment he was raised in or what, you mongolian dingbat?

so, abel comes out of the ghetto as a celebrity(athlete or rockstar). . . . .continued his habits with so much money to feed it and rolling in an industry that is drug-fuelled. . . .and ended up like amy winehouse. . . is it fair to blame abel for the life he led knowing he had no moral compass from the very beginning to choose the right path for himself? you are here condemning amy winehouse whose upbringing might have been shitty and yet you have no compassion, pity for the environment she was raised. . . . .in all honesty, you are a scatter-brain and if you make a mistake of marrying someone like yourself - you shall produce nitwits.

eldee:
You've switched it off again . . . repeating yourself won't help you.

Okay, I've tried alcohol/tobacco a few times, I'm not addicted . . . another person tries it the same amount of times and get hooked.
Now we both made the choice to try it, but he didn't decide to get hooked. . . that's the difference.
Why did he get hooked, these goes way beyond just choice.

Coogar used an example of over-the-counter drugs, we all take them, but some get addicted, why?? They felt like destroying their liver??
There's enough medical research to show that addiction is when the brain has been affected.

You can attempt to trivialise it as much as you want, that's your choice . . . let's just hope is your cultural/religious ideologies at work and not just you on a normal day.

sagamite is either too lunkheaded to understand or he's just on a wind-up(because he fears he has lost the argument).
not everyone that uses drugs get addicted to it. the ones who get addicted never wanted to get addicted. they lost control and got addicted.
they are helpless. all of them want to get rid of the addiction but most of them cannot.

jeeez, you might need an axe to pierce sagamite's cranium and put knowledge in there. heath ledger got addicted to sleeping pills and died as a result. should we blame him in the first place for taking medicinal drugs? is he irresponsible for taking sleeping pills? sagamite claims high iq and he thinks anyone taking any drug is irresponsible cos it can harm/kill them? at this rate i am not sure sagamite's iq is higher than the length of his nose in centimetres.

nucca just dey misyarn!

Sagamite:
Utter rubbish!

So people need drugs to perform. Utter clunking rubbish!

Drugs aid them in performing, they do not need it.

you are beginning to sound like an illiterate now. why seek the aid if they do not need it.
does it not occur to you these people cannot cope with the pressure they cop from their jobs, the media, etc?

Rubbish! If he uses it frequently as in everyday, he will be most likely addicted.

you obviously don't know the meaning of self-control. some people take it when they get in the mood. if they party everyday for a month, they will take drugs. but, if there's no party mood for months, they will not get the urge and get along well without it. some people are wired like that.

Stop fighting science!
Stop chatting rubbish!

science cannot prove everything empirically. i am not fighting science, i am imposing common sense.

A disorder is an addiction?
Really?

of course. . . . .surprised you have never heard of bulimia nervosa and you are talking about fighting science. . . .
grab a book and read!!!

Put your figures down.
Back it up!

do i need to back this up?
you want to compare alcohol related diseases to drugs related diseases?
i give up on you - this is at best laughable.

Get it in your head: 99% of everything in life is not harmful, addictive and needed.
You were WRONG!

if there's no need for them, people won't get involved with it.
stop debating like an illiterate. if there's no demand, there wouldn't be a supply.
this is economics.

So you are using what is needed for medicinal reasons to justify what is taken for recreational reason? That is purely asinine! I can't be diplomatic about that.

now your illiteracy shines through. cocaine, heroin, etc are also medicinal.
matter of fact, these same drugs are prescribed to the addicts during detoxing.

Your argument gets more moronically ridiculous?
People can not get on without alcohol?

what makes someone alcoholic? have you ever walked in the shoes of these people to know what they feel like?

Fck me! That is extremely reetarded argument.
I don't need to walk in the shoe of ediots to know when they are being ediots.

the best brains and the best talents in this world have used drugs. they are not ediots like you claim. one on one, these people will beat you hands down in an iq test. they take the drugs because they need to.

Using driving to justify drug taking.
Reetard!

everyone's need is different and using the words "reetard, moroonic, etc" will not advance your points one jot. you just keep barking without biting and if you can open your mouth and say food is not addictive then i suggest you burn your degree certificates and start all over again.
people have sued mcdonalds and other food joints for their addiction and you are claiming food cannot be addictive. you need help!

Sagamite:
I thought your daft arse said they took it because they needed it?

this is the 3rd time of me telling you is a bit of both. they often do it to feel cool and sometimes it's because they need it.
are you dyslexic?

Sagamite:
Well, you can't get addicted to something you don't take, can you?

It is a choice to take something you know will harm you, isn't it?

Let's use our brains to think like that before we try and lamely absorb people of fault.

the users do not take drugs deliberately to get addicted, they take it to "feel cool"
lack of self-control leads them to addiction. after the addiction, some of them want to quit - they do everything to quit but they cannot!
these people are helpless. you think they continue because they are stubborn but that is not true.

davidylan:
At least this is one problem the poor can never have. They cant afford the drugs in the first place.

says who? they commit crime to feed their habits. car-jacking, robbery, etc.

Seun:
It's not the first, and it won't  be the last.  Hollywood has a serious drug problem and something should be done.

hollywood? you make me laugh.
the whole western world has a drug problem particularly united kingdom and united states. they cannot cope with the epidemic.

Sagamite:
They have the choice not to.
And if they do and it fcks them up, fck them. Am I suppose to have pity?

if they don't need to, they would not use it. i am willing to bet all these celebrities use drugs. the usage just varies from person to person.

If you use hard drugs everyday, you will be addicted!
How come we are not addicted to food?

i disagree. my boss uses marijuana quite frequently and he is not addicted. he can go months without it if he wants to.

Food is addictive is really a silly argument.

it's not. there are various eating disorders - read it up.

Because more people take alcohol? Isn't it?

the ratio not the actual number of deaths.

Is it addictive or not?
It is not like everything in life. It is addictive and it harms you and you do not need it. That is not how everything in life is.
What the fck don't you get in that?

which is why i said 99%. besides, the fact that some things are addictive does not mean every user will be addicted to them.

Aspirin is used to relieve pain! It is not recreational?

just letting you know you can also take some drugs for purely medicinal purposes and still die if overused. your argument is taking drugs is irresponsible and i am saying it's not. the quantity taken is the determinant whether its responsible or not. commercial adverts now say "drink responsibly" - they do not say "don't drink". there's a line between responsibility and irresponsibility.

Yep!
Some of us get on very fine without it.
It is not as irresponsible as those that take crack. It is milder irresponsibility.

the fact that some of youse get on without it does not mean everyone else would. this is point you cannot see.
besides, there's nothing called milder irresponsibility. that is clutching at straws. one is either responsible or irresponsible. no one can sit on the fence in that sphere of life.

THEY . . . . DO . . . . . NOT . . . . . NEED . . . . . IT!

why are they taking it if they don't need it. have you walked in their shoes?

Don't go back to comparing driving to taking crack. That is moronic.

a certain degree of risk is involved in both activities. it does not matter whether the purpose of that activity is positive or negative as long as both of them are capable of killing.

Sagamite:
That is utter crap!

There is a different from "need" and "catalyst".

I run faster with performance enhancing drugs does not mean I need it to run.

and when you have artistes who are compelled to perform here, there, today, tomorrow - how soon before they start taking performance enhancing drugs?

This is a silly argument.
So how come the 6 billion people on earth that eat everyday are not addicted?

and who told you all drug users are addicted?

Who said it was not bad?
The point is that it is no way as bad as crack.

alcohol is not as bad as crack but alcohol has killed more than crack.
sagamite, define bad?

It does not fck you up?

it does if you overuse it - just like 99% things in life.

Comparing aspirin to crack is not bounding on moronic, it is plainly moronic.
Very daft argument.

you keep running in circles. aspirin can be lethal if overused. . . .crack is lethal if overused.
heath ledger died of abuse of prescription drugs. . . .he probably wanted to cure his insomnia and he died as a result.

Taking a drug you have potential of getting addicted to when you do not need it is IRRESPONSIBLE!

by the same token, everyone who takes alcohol is irresponsible, right?

There is NO responsibility in taking drugs you do not need.

and i have told you they take it because they need it. stop comparing yourself to them - you keep making that mistake. you do not need it does not mean other people don't need it.

If you draw your inspiration from something that can kill you then good riddance to you when it does.

this is life, anything can kill. your house has more killing devices/tools than a war field. too much of anything can kill and yet we keep these things around us week in week out. would you then say it's irresponsible to drive? cos driving has it's risks? the moment you realize life itself is a risk, this debate will become clearer to you.

BlueDiva:
1. Not really. We are all exposed to a world of crime, murder and drugs.
It is safe to say the deviants amongst us are far less than those who conform to the laws.
It"s safe to say, majority of people haven"t been influenced to adopt deviant lifestyle.

2. More people smoked weed at the shrine.Tthat doesnt prove that more weed smokers love Fela.
We have lots of responsible people who wouldnt go to the shrine for safety reasons or to avoid mixing with "hoologans"

My point is that the theory of being influenced is overstated.
I believe people are whom they are.

you nailed it!
if everyone is influenced by what they see here and there. . . . .everyone in the world would drink, smoke, use drugs, etc.

phreakabit:
Well you dont take those in the club for fun now do you?

does it matter where it's taken? the point is can it cause death?

Sagamite:
This guy, cut the crap!
They do not NEED it. They choose to have it.

artistes do need it. some of them have said that is where they draw their inspiration. read the autobiography of notorious b.i.g. he cannot perform without his drugs and as soon as he puffs, he spits verses without pen and notepad.

No 1, food is not addictive.

yes, it is. food is addictive. read about compulsive overeating disorder.

No 2, alcohol is not a good thing but it is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR better than crack.

it's either good or bad. if it's not a good thing, then it's bad just like crack.

Recreational drugs? And so? Who said it was good?

but it(marijuana) doesn't kill - so what makes it bad?

What did I tell you about need, requirement and balancing with risk?
And you still intend on comparing Aspirin to crack?

both are drugs, both can kill.

Secondly, you still intend to compare a punch from Halle Berry to that of Klitschko?
Cut the silly arguments.

before we lose sight of the argument. . . . .i am saying taking the drug itself is not irresponsible. . . . . . .overdoing it(just like many things in life) is the irresponsibility.

If they got used to it and become destitute or dead, GOOD RIDDANCE!

exactly my sentiments. they did it responsibly because they did not overdo/got used to it. that is what i have been trying to say since this argument started. people vary from individual to individual. you could draw your inspiration from a good rest and frank sinatra music. some others draw theirs by either smoking, drinking, using drugs, etc. if they do their required level - it is not irresponsible. if they lack the self-control and they overdo it - that is where the irresponsibility lies.