A man walks into a hamburger restaurant where he has bought a permanent seat (the universal). He sits down, picks up the menu and looks at the long selection of hamburgers(AKU 3.X ROMS) to order from. The waiter comes over and asks what he would like. The man looking around, looks through the swinging doors into the kitchen(Microsoft and HTC) and see the chefs cooking steaks(WM6). The man looks at the waiter and says “I’ll have a steak.”
The waiter replies “I am sorry sir, but this is a hamburger restaurant.”
“Then why are they making steaks?” he asks, pointing to the chefs in the kitchen.
“Ah, they are preparing for a new steak restaurant that we will be opening next door. They are simply trying to get the flavour right.” He says quiet proudly.
The man looks reflective for a moment then says “Alright, I’ll buy a steak. How much do you want for it? You can test the flavour on me.”
“Again, I am sorry sir , but the steaks are for only in-house chefs to try.” The waiter replies.
“Fine. Let me speak to your manager.”
“I am the waiter/manager, sir. And no matter how much you offer, we will not be selling those steaks here. I am sorry.”
The man then gets up and leaves the restaurant, goes around to the side door (XDA-forums) and knocks on it politely and explains to the chef that he would like to try a steak in the hamburger restaurant.
The chef tells the man “ Since you own the seat here in the restaurant, you can bring any food you would like and eat it at your table. I’ll give you a steak and you go back around and eat it inside.”
The man hearing this is overjoyed. “Thank you kind sir. I will give you any feedback on what I think about your steaks.”
The man then takes his steak, heads back into the hamburger restaurant and proceeds to eat it. The man thinks “Why didn’t he just sell me a steak? It would have been so much easier. Tell me a price.”
The manager seeing this knows where the steak came from and is quiet consternated. On one hand his new restaurant is not open and he would like some feedback about his steaks. Hell, he himself eats the steaks in this restaurant. On the other, he cannot sell steaks in this restaurant as most of the seats have been bought, plus few would want to spend the extra money on adding steak to the menu and it would take away business from the other restaurant. So, he lets the man eat his steak for now, knowing that one day soon he might have to lock the side door.
I suggest reading it twice. Once as a business man and again as a consumer.
Great Analysis ! ! !
Sounds Great...
Sounds Great...
Fabulous
i think that by far is the best 1st post i have seen!!! Its perfect! i think im gonna cry, lol j/k
This post accurately represents the daily dilemma that a board such as XDA Devs faces when trying to choose between just plainly serving the menu and trying to get their customers the best there is without getting on the wrong foot with companies such as HTC or Microsoft.
What I miss in this story though is the Chef threatening to sue the restaurant manager if he dares to serve steak outside the menu. I would also dare to say that when knocking on the XDA-Devs side door, it would not be the Chef (e.g. Microsoft) answering the door, but the sidekick that does the dishes
Wiz said:
What I miss in this story though is the Chef threatening to sue the restaurant manager if he dares to serve steak outside the menu. I would also dare to say that when knocking on the XDA-Devs side door, it would not be the Chef (e.g. Microsoft) answering the door, but the sidekick that does the dishes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That just screams "Can i get an Apple with that iSteak". well sh!t, im probably going to get a letter from apple over that comment.
Guy 1: I'm getting sick of eating the same burger for over a year. I read from the news that there is a new cafe opening soon. It looks like a nice place, cozy & fancy. The apple pie sure looks delicious
Guy 2: Well, you know. This restaurant is also coming up with a new menu soon. It's a steak. I'll tell you what, I just got a sample from the chef. Wanna bite?
Guy 1: Sure!
Guy 2: So What do you think?
Guy 1: Uhmm...my..GOD...delicious. I prefer it well done, anyway, it's much better then the burger. If they tweak it a bit, I'm sold
GREAT !
Just a GREAT Post !
I'm all exhausted from laughing
Cheers
Wiz said:
This post accurately represents the daily dilemma that a board such as XDA Devs faces when trying to choose between just plainly serving the menu and trying to get their customers the best there is without getting on the wrong foot with companies such as HTC or Microsoft.
What I miss in this story though is the Chef threatening to sue the restaurant manager if he dares to serve steak outside the menu. I would also dare to say that when knocking on the XDA-Devs side door, it would not be the Chef (e.g. Microsoft) answering the door, but the sidekick that does the dishes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, I was going to say "junior chef", however I do know major devs(none in the PPC market) who, for reasons of their own, give out "in-development software" for testing and feedback. These guys look at it as a free resource and a symbiotic relationship. They get what they want and you get to use the latest and greatest.
I wrote this article to show the legal grey area that the XDA-Forums operates in. It really is a tight rope act. One slip and its a long fall with no net.
You do provide invaluable services to the community as well as much needed feedback on PPC products to the companies that create them. But what do you think will happen when one of these companies' manager types gets the notion that you are hurting profits instead of creating them?
PS I see the waiter/manager as the managers of Microsoft/HTC with the chefs strictly being Devs.
I have smart tools, most handy thing out of that is the compass basically.
So im asking, what are the best survival apps?
Im no conspiracy nut, but it doesn't take a genius to realize the earth is going through stuff it never has before.
Survival apps meaning:
Any guides (i already have the US army & Navy guides)
Any tools that utilizes the Epic's tech (i.e compass, solar wind activity)
If we do not already, someone needs to start coding some serious apps.
Also, if anyone knows of any good ad-hoc programs for when cell towers go down.
Having a nice shiny phone wont mean **** when the cell towers go down.
Take this seriously, please.
When the towers go down and all that madness starts happening, how do you plan on charging your shiny phone?
Edit: As snide a response as this is, I'm being serious. There's better ways to be prepared.
In all seriousness, anything a smartphone can do (assuming network infrastructure is kaput) is better done with a purpose built tool. If TSHTF, you really think a day or two of battery life is gonna cut it?
Better to get a standalone analog compass, a good set of maps, and a decent Yaesu HT ham radio. No reason to reinvent the wheel.
(Unless you want to play Angry Birds)
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
klub242 said:
When the towers go down and all that madness starts happening, how do you plan on charging your shiny phone?
Edit: As snide a response as this is, I'm being serious. There's better ways to be prepared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just thanked you when i meant to quote lol, off to a great start. As for your "response", no ****.
**** hits the fan, you have a phone for 2-3 MAX, what apps are you gonna have that will help you?
You think i assume our Epics are gonna be solar charged or something?
So again, 2-3 days max...what apps are going to be the most helpful?
EDIT: If you're going to state the obvious (phone dying) then dont bother posting, im fully aware of
that as its the big pink elephant in the room.
comedy said:
I just thanked you when i meant to quote lol, off to a great start. As for your "response", no ****.
**** hits the fan, you have a phone for 2-3 MAX, what apps are you gonna have that will help you?
You think i assume our Epics are gonna be solar charged or something?
So again, 2-3 days max...what apps are going to be the most helpful?
EDIT: If you're going to state the obvious (phone dying) then dont bother posting, im fully aware of
that as its the big pink elephant in the room.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's okay. I'm thank-worthy. As much as I love technology and the cool things it can do... I wouldn't really bother. You're a lot better off learning basic things like first aid and having the head knowledge than being reliant on anything. Also, it's awfully optimistic to hope for more than 24 hours max if you ask me.
klub242 said:
It's okay. I'm thank-worthy. As much as I love technology and the cool things it can do... I wouldn't really bother. You're a lot better off learning basic things like first aid and having the head knowledge than being reliant on anything. Also, it's awfully optimistic to hope for more than 24 hours max if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol, you're an interesting fellow -- interesting is the nicest word I can think of at the moment.
I have everything else covered, dry meals, water filters, i have enough first aid kits to aid a village. I have much more aid that i wont list as it comes from ex-military friends, trust me when I say I have everything else covered.
So again, when TSHTF, what are the most useful apps?
I cant even believe im trying to explain to you the importance of having survival apps on your phone, feel like im taking crazy pills or something.
EDIT: and no, you are not thank worthy -- not even close. Please abandon the thread if you continue to think small small-mindedly, on the other hand
if you want to contribute, please do.
They have solar chargers for laptops which will hold over 10 full cellphone charges and require something like 10 hours of sunlight to get those 10 full charges. With them, you could charge your cell phone as fast as you could with a normal power adapter from the wall.
I think they also have $50 range solar chargers which would hold about 3-4 cell phone charges, and get your cell phone charged fully in 3-4 hours from sunlight or from the built-in battery.
I'll take a stab at a serious reply for ya...
Other than a compass, obviously... A GPS program with pre-downloaded maps might come in handy, something like Gaia GPS, perhaps, where you can get maps with hiking trails listed. I figure if something happens to take out the satellites, you probably wouldn't be around to worry about much else!
My app is called an AR15.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
My app is called an AR15.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Bigjim1488 said:
My app is called an AR15.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So, let me get this straight. You shoot people to get directions?
Gotta love 'em rednecks.
Thanks Nabbed & Dalmus, will definitely look into both of those.
As for the others, the ignorance is amazing.
Ill list some of my own if anyone didnt already know about them:
BrightestFlashlight
U.S. Army Survival Guide
U.S. Navy Seal Training Guide (which i downloaded & loaded onto my phone w/ a pdf reader)
Boskoi (utilizes google maps (albeit if its still up) to show you ALL edible sources around you, nuts, fruits, berries, even fungi.
ICE: In Case of Emergence (shows you First & Local responders (police stations, hospitals) and also gives you information on allergies, specific medical conditions,
how to treat someone who is unconscious, ect.
Also remember, if you have some steel wool & enough tinder you can start a fire with your own battery.
Small-minded thinking gets you nowhere, open-minded with a dash of doubt is most important.
Not just outright "Oh you think you're phone will save you?"
No offense, but I'm not sure how this thread even belongs on the XDA forums...
Lonewuhf said:
No offense, but I'm not sure how this thread even belongs on the XDA forums...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No offense taken.
The right approach would be to think, wow we really do need some handy apps.
I'd code everything myself and not ask a single question but I obviously dont have that knowledge so instead I have to take a gamble, post on here -- & get nothing but ignorant responses.
Except for the few that get what im saying
Nabby & Dal <3
comedy said:
No offense taken.
The right approach would be to think, wow we really do need some handy apps.
I'd code everything myself and not ask a single question but I obviously dont have that knowledge so instead I have to take a gamble, post on here -- & get nothing but ignorant responses.
Except for the few that get what im saying
Nabby & Dal <3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure how my post was ignorant at all, I was kind of thinking the same about this entire thread. This belongs somewhere, yes, but not here. At least take it over to the themes and apps section... And no I don't think we need apps of this kind. If I was worried about something happening, I'd get actual tools designed (and much better) to solve these problems than my cell phone.
you could smash the gorilla glass and use it to skin squirrels and cut paracord.
nabbed said:
So, let me get this straight. You shoot people to get directions?
Gotta love 'em rednecks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's called a map and compass for directions. Gun to hold onto my shiny cell phone that I will wear around my neck as a trophy because that's all it will be good for.
If your really looking for a serious note on this and I am still confused why you'd rely on a cell phone when things go down but I'd get all the guides, local maps, points in interest I.e. police stations, military bases, hospitals and load them into PDF files then save them on your phone so you can have all the info ready. No cell reception required.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Bigjim1488 said:
It's called a map and compass for directions. Gun to hold onto my shiny cell phone that I will wear around my neck as a trophy because that's all it will be good for.
If your really looking for a serious note on this and I am still confused why you'd rely on a cell phone when things go down but I'd get all the guides, local maps, points in interest I.e. police stations, military bases, hospitals and load them into PDF files then save them on your phone so you can have all the info ready. No cell reception required.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You'd be much better served with a glock. If you want to shoot bandits in the case of a national emergency, a handgun trumps the rifle.
Also, you seem to be confused, friend. If you are going up against a totalitarian government, then a rifle is a good choice. A handgun is much better in the case of riots. Your confusion seems to stem from the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. You see, you can fight against injustice with a rifle, but a handgun is much more useful in case of civil disobedience.
I have to repeat these obvious truths 3 times over because rednecks really don't think for themselves.
nabbed said:
You'd be much better served with a glock. If you want to shoot bandits in the case of a national emergency, a handgun trumps the rifle.
Also, you seem to be confused, friend. If you are going up against a totalitarian government, then a rifle is a good choice. A handgun is much better in the case of riots. Your confusion seems to stem from the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. You see, you can fight against injustice with a rifle, but a handgun is much more useful in case of civil disobedience.
I have to repeat these obvious truths 3 times over because rednecks really don't think for themselves.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol your a tool box good sir. This thread went from worthless to just silly. Who is talking about fighting the government, riots or second amendment. Apparently your idea of $hit hitting the fan is way different then most. This went from joking around to you getting mad. Why so mad?
I'll make it even simpler, a pistol for CQB/CQD and a rifle for anything past that. Take your smugness somewhere else, it doesn't really add much here.
Bigjim1488 said:
Lol your a tool box good sir. This thread went from worthless to just silly. Who is talking about fighting the government, riots or second amendment. Apparently your idea of $hit hitting the fan is way different then most. This went from joking around to you getting mad. Why so mad? I
I'll make it even simpler, a pistol for CQB/CQD and a rifle for anything past that. Take your smugness somewhere else, it doesn't really add much here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry but I didn't read what you wrote. I just pushed the Quote button.
But I digress. Let me give youa piece if advice, mr. Redneck. Go to your backyard immediately and dig a hole. Take that pos ar-15 and bury it in the hole. Then go to your favorite gun store and get yourself an ak.
Happy 420 every one! Hope everyones 420 was as good as mine. Oh also happy birthday Hitler bawhaha
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Hahahaha
So few people seem to know 4/20 is hitlers bday. An fd up man, but genius as well. Crazy and wacko, but brilliant, as well, in terms of how he manipulated/dealt with peers.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
scottspa74 said:
Hahahaha
So few people seem to know 4/20 is hitlers bday. An fd up man, but genius as well. Crazy and wacko, but brilliant, as well, in terms of how he manipulated/dealt with peers.
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea Haha
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
lol in stoner time you were on time too
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-m...age&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage
I have a lot of friends and family who smoke pot, and the majority of them are pretty vocal about wanting it legalized. Let me make perfectly clear right off the bat that I'm not coming at this as an "anti-pot" guy because I personally don't give a **** if they legalize it, and it doesn't bother me that people smoke. I've done my share of illegal substances.
But why are pot advocates some of the most annoying f*****g people on the planet.
I'm not talking about the average Joe who just wishes it were legal. Hell, those people are inching into the majority and comprise a significant portion of our own audience. I'm talking about the people who push it so hard that they're just short of going door to door, like Mormons. And they get so aggressive and misguided in their arguments that I'm pretty sure that they are their own worst enemy at this point.
#5.Taxing it Will Save the Economy!
This one seems to be the dominant argument ever since the economy went to ****. "Legalize it and tax it! With all the money we'll save from enforcement and all the tax money we'll take in, it'll balance the budget!" And no, I'm not exaggerating the claims -- here's one of the more articulate articles that literally says marijuana would "save the economy."
Cited some pretty big numbers. "Full legalization would bring in $6.2bn annually if it were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco." Man, that's a lot! But when you put that up beside the total taxes collected in 2010 ($2.1 trillion) and the current national debt ($14.4 trillion), the dent it makes is comparable to trying to change the orbit of the Sun by shooting it with your BB gun.
There's no doubt that legalization would create some jobs and bring in some tax revenue. But it's a drop in the bucket, and when you start presenting that drop with titles like (as in the wake of the Prop 19 legalization movement in California last year) "Save California: Legalize Marijuana" and "To Save California, Legalize Pot", it makes it sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, it makes it sound like a bunch of young stoners making **** up, and that gives opponents an excuse to dismiss everything else you're saying.
It's the same when the advocates say that we'd be able to "fix the budget" by eliminating the cost of marijuana-related law enforcement, based on this insane idea that once the drug is legal, we'd no longer need any of that. As if the country would suddenly turn into a free-for-all, grow-your-own, weedathon where there are no regulations or restrictions on its production, and yet everyone would just volunteer to report and pay the $50 per ounce tax out of a sense of civic duty. Why? Because people prefer to do things the legal way? That's true... because they fear going to jail. Which means you still have to pay for cops to investigate and arrest people who use unauthorized pot.
This is what opponents were trying to explain during the California legalization debate, that you're going to need a lot of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity you're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do you get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? So then you need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and figuring out what weed does to your health insurance premiums, etc.
Again, let me make clear that whether it's legalized or not, my life doesn't change. I couldn't give less of a damn. It's the dishonesty of the arguments themselves, and the way you're absolutely bludgeoned with these on the internet, that I find infuriating. And none piss me off more than...
#4. We Need it for Cancer Patients! And to Make Paper!
This is a tactic used by almost every advocate I've ever met. See, they don't want to legalize pot because they want to smoke it and get high. No, they're only concerned on behalf of cancer patients. And they'll have martyrs they can pull out as examples, like that guy who was fired for using medical marijuana on the job. That's what legalization is really about, right, TokeOfTheTown.com?
This is usually lumped in with the general defense that "Hemp can be used for lots of things! You can make paper out of it. Clothing. Rope." Hell, marijuana was only made illegal because the traditional paper industry was afraid superior hemp would take over, right, website that has "420" in the URL?
I hear both arguments from friends constantly, and not a damn one of them has cancer. None of them has ever had a need for, nor owned a rope. And before they started reading "facts" off of a pro-weed website, not one of them thought twice about the paper industry. It's a bull****, back-door argument. And, again, it makes everything they say seem invalid -- the same as when states that do legalize for medicinal use immediately see half of the patients use it, not for cancer, but mysterious "chronic pain" or "stress relief." In other words, they lie so they can get medicinal weed, not caring that it makes the entire campaign seem like a lie.
People want to get high, and I just wish they'd come out and say it. Of all the arguments I've ever heard, I've never had a solitary person step up and just say with unmasked honesty, "I want to get stoned without the fear of being arrested." Which is ironic to me because it's the only argument I've ever heard that makes sense. It's the only one that's even remotely logical.
Putting up this front that weed is a magical cure for all things economic not only requires you to bend the truth beyond recognition, but makes it seem like you're admitting that simply wanting to get high is not a valid reason to make it legal. In fact, the cancer patients who do in fact benefit from it wind up becoming the victims of your bull****. When a perfectly healthy guy with dreadlocks and cannabis leaf t-shirts stands up next to the cancer patient and pretends the interests of the cancer patient are all he has in mind, it makes it look like both of them are full of ****.
#3.It's Good for You!
So the picture I'm starting to get is that pot advocates saw the government's old, ridiculous anti-weed propaganda that grossly exaggerated the harm of the drug and decided that the best way to combat that was to simply tell equally silly lies in the opposite direction. So in my lifetime I've seen the argument go from "pot isn't as bad as other illegal drugs" to "it doesn't hurt you" to literally saying weed is "good for you." You know, like it's Vitamin C or calcium.
For instance, when various studies showed that THC might slow the growth of some tumors (while making others grow faster), all of the studies pointed out that they got their results by injecting the chemical and not getting lab rats to smoke joints (a pretty major difference). Yet, pot advocates immediately took those results and translated them into endless headlines asserting that smoking weed "cures cancer." Never mind that all of these studies on the positive side effects of TCH and other chemicals in cannabis go way out of their way to tell you that this does not mean that smoking weed will cure your cancer.
That's because on the whole, breathing smoke of any kind, is not good for you. And with pot, you're inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there for a long time, and that's going to damage the tissue. In fact, just three joints a day do as much damage to the lungs as twenty cigarettes. We can be fair and cite this study saying there is no connection between cancer and smoking marijuana. Though we could also cite the studies that have found the opposite to be true.
But even if we take cancer off the table, there are a whole host of negative effects we can list. Right after smoking, the average heart rate increases between 20% to 100%, and that effect can last up to three hours -- your risk of heart attack shoots up fivefold within the first hour of using. If you have anxiety disorders, there's even more bad news. It's being found more and more that modern pot can actually cause panic attacks, and is a high risk for triggering an already existing condition. In the still-growing brains of younger smokers, it can stunt basic emotional development and promote paranoia. And just on the whole, users are far more likely to come down with illnesses and miss work than non-users. One of the biggest debates right now is whether younger users are at higher risk for the emergence of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia.com cites 30 studies that show a connection.
But again, I'm not trying to fall back to the government's "one joint will drive you insane" scaremongering. Pot is not as bad as heroin. That isn't my point. But don't go the other way and start acting like the **** is broccoli.
It's at this point that someone always brings up...
#2. Alcohol and Tobacco are Worse, and They're Legal!
Yep, booze and cigarettes are pretty bad for you. Deadly, even, if they're abused. Hell, I had a doctor tell me straight up that if I didn't quit drinking entirely, I'd be dead within the next five years. I've never heard a doctor tell someone that about their weed smoking. Drunk driving and smoking-related lung cancer have literally killed millions.
In fact, here's a not-at-all-retarded rebuttal from a legalization advocate in response to a "Foundation for a Drug-Free World" pamphlet that claims pot is more dangerous than alcohol. In case you didn't read that, it's exactly what you'd expect from a site that runs its articles over a background of marijuana leaf gifs, versus a highly generalized and exaggerated claim from an organization that is obviously anti-pot. The argument being, "Pot is worse than booze!" "Nuh-uh, alcohol is worse!"
But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't matter.
Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.
If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or blowing a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.
You have to remember that the people who have the power to change these laws are old, rich, stuffy white guys who for the most part don't smoke weed. When they hear rebuttals like this, they're picturing a six year old kid stomping his foot and screaming at his mother, "Why can't I play that game? Jimmy's mom lets him play GTA, and that's way worse!" The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before.
#1.It's not Addictive!
Of course, the thing that scares society about any drug, and the thing that makes alcohol and tobacco so deadly, is addiction. This is crucial to any argument for legalization, because you can't talk about "freedom" to use some product if that same product in fact takes away your ability to freely choose to stop using it. You don't hear people at AA meetings sit around and reflect on how awesome it is that they have the freedom to drink.
Here, I have to admit my own personal experience bias -- my brother used to love giving me that "it's not addictive" line as he was lighting up his tenth one-hitter, with four hours of sunlight left in the day. He couldn't go more than a couple of hours without lighting up, but he's probably just an isolated case, right?
It's been suggested that because most users aren't habitual, the majority of people will never develop a severe dependency on pot. Much in the same way that not everyone who drinks will become an alcoholic. In fact, according to that link, about 15% of drinkers will develop a major dependency, as opposed to around 9% of marijuana users.
That's just the statistics for "severe" addictions. They claim that between 10% and 30% of marijuana smokers will at least fall into a minor addiction. Note that neither of those statistics are 0%. You know, the threshold for "not addictive."
This is where my brother loves to bring up our uncle... I'll call him Thundercock Soulpuncher. Uncle Thundercock smoked pot his entire adolescent life during the 1960s and 70s, and when he decided to file away his partying days and join the adult world, he had no problem at all stepping away from weed. But studies from 1983 to present show that the average THC level (the chemical in pot that gives the buzz) back then was about 4%. The same group found that over the last few decades, the seized pot they studied had risen to over 10%, with some plants as high as 30%. It's predicted that in the next five to ten years, that average will reach around 15% before it hits a plateau.
What's that mean? It means you get higher faster, using less of the drug. It also means that younger, inexperienced smokers have a higher chance of addiction than ol' Thundercock because they're smoking stickier ****.
Now, once again, it's widely believed that pot is much easier to quit than smoking, booze, heroin, and just about every other drug out there. But the belief that "it's not addictive" is bull****. Want an easy way to see if you're addicted? Give it up for a year. I have a feeling that would be tough for a lot of you, considering how many can't go one week without working it into a conversation. It's tough to give up something that you've built your entire personality around.
But just keep in mind: if you want to see a day when the cops won't hassle you for smoking it, you're going to need to be a lot smarter about how you argue the issue, that's all I'm saying.
The legalizing or Mary Jane alone wouldn't save the economy, but the decriminalization of all recreational drugs, tax and regulation and an end to the failed war on drugs would. There is more money spent on the enforcement of drug laws, and housing of non violent offenders for drug violations than almost any other domestic problem. If you take a page out of Amsterdam's Playbook, after the decriminalization of recreational drugs there crime rates plummeted and tax revenue increased almost 1000% due to the fact that the tax revenue had a new source and the existing tax revenue wasn't being plundered for enforcement of failed drug laws. In Amsterdam addicts can get their methadone from water fountain's in clinics for free so when they can't afford their heroin they aren't going out robbing and stealing because they are dopesick they can just walk into any 24hr clinic and get medication anonymously to ease their withdrawals. Over there there is no stigma attached to addicts that they are the scum of the earth, which is good because addiction is a disease and just because someone is an addict doesn't make them a bad person. That would be like saying because so and so has cancer they are a bad person and its all their fault they have cancer.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Legalize It
A bit on the nose, Don't you think?
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
And hipkat pot is not addicitive in tthe same way as nicotine, booze or heroin it is habit forming but when you quit there are no physical effects. I've smoked off and on for the last 15 years and never once had a problem going without it for anywhere from a few days to 2 or 3 years. I have also been addicted to painkillers after a surgery and after about 20 hours without am opiate in your system you feel like you have the worst flu in the world, chills, sweats, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, blurry vision, aches and pains etc. Alcohol withdrawal can be deadly, it causes seizures and can even result in coma. Nicotine withdrawal gives you migraines, diarrhea, sweats and shakes. Marijuana withdrawal you may not be as hungry all the time and you may not sleep as much, but there are no health risks or discomfort from it. Anyone who tells you marijuana is physically addicitive is a) a fearmonger and b) a flatout liar, there is absolutely 0 medical evidence to back their claims up because it is simply a scaretactic created by the anti drug nuts to keep the people from wanting it legalized by turning it into some kind of monster akin to heorin or cocaine.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
HipKat said:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-pro-m...age&utm_campaign=new+article&wa_ibsrc=fanpage
I have a lot of friends and family who smoke pot, and the majority of them are pretty vocal about wanting it legalized. Let me make perfectly clear right off the bat that I'm not coming at this as an "anti-pot" guy because I personally don't give a **** if they legalize it, and it doesn't bother me that people smoke. I've done my share of illegal substances.
But why are pot advocates some of the most annoying f*****g people on the planet.
I'm not talking about the average Joe who just wishes it were legal. Hell, those people are inching into the majority and comprise a significant portion of our own audience. I'm talking about the people who push it so hard that they're just short of going door to door, like Mormons. And they get so aggressive and misguided in their arguments that I'm pretty sure that they are their own worst enemy at this point.
#5.Taxing it Will Save the Economy!
This one seems to be the dominant argument ever since the economy went to ****. "Legalize it and tax it! With all the money we'll save from enforcement and all the tax money we'll take in, it'll balance the budget!" And no, I'm not exaggerating the claims -- here's one of the more articulate articles that literally says marijuana would "save the economy."
Cited some pretty big numbers. "Full legalization would bring in $6.2bn annually if it were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco." Man, that's a lot! But when you put that up beside the total taxes collected in 2010 ($2.1 trillion) and the current national debt ($14.4 trillion), the dent it makes is comparable to trying to change the orbit of the Sun by shooting it with your BB gun.
There's no doubt that legalization would create some jobs and bring in some tax revenue. But it's a drop in the bucket, and when you start presenting that drop with titles like (as in the wake of the Prop 19 legalization movement in California last year) "Save California: Legalize Marijuana" and "To Save California, Legalize Pot", it makes it sound like you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, it makes it sound like a bunch of young stoners making **** up, and that gives opponents an excuse to dismiss everything else you're saying.
It's the same when the advocates say that we'd be able to "fix the budget" by eliminating the cost of marijuana-related law enforcement, based on this insane idea that once the drug is legal, we'd no longer need any of that. As if the country would suddenly turn into a free-for-all, grow-your-own, weedathon where there are no regulations or restrictions on its production, and yet everyone would just volunteer to report and pay the $50 per ounce tax out of a sense of civic duty. Why? Because people prefer to do things the legal way? That's true... because they fear going to jail. Which means you still have to pay for cops to investigate and arrest people who use unauthorized pot.
This is what opponents were trying to explain during the California legalization debate, that you're going to need a lot of new regulations to figure out just exactly what activity you're legalizing, and what happens to the people who violate the new laws. Do you get the FDA involved in regulating the THC content? So then you need somebody enforcing those regulations, right? And to go after the stronger, black market stuff? Then we'd still have DUI arrests to deal with, and figuring out what weed does to your health insurance premiums, etc.
Again, let me make clear that whether it's legalized or not, my life doesn't change. I couldn't give less of a damn. It's the dishonesty of the arguments themselves, and the way you're absolutely bludgeoned with these on the internet, that I find infuriating. And none piss me off more than...
#4. We Need it for Cancer Patients! And to Make Paper!
This is a tactic used by almost every advocate I've ever met. See, they don't want to legalize pot because they want to smoke it and get high. No, they're only concerned on behalf of cancer patients. And they'll have martyrs they can pull out as examples, like that guy who was fired for using medical marijuana on the job. That's what legalization is really about, right, TokeOfTheTown.com?
This is usually lumped in with the general defense that "Hemp can be used for lots of things! You can make paper out of it. Clothing. Rope." Hell, marijuana was only made illegal because the traditional paper industry was afraid superior hemp would take over, right, website that has "420" in the URL?
I hear both arguments from friends constantly, and not a damn one of them has cancer. None of them has ever had a need for, nor owned a rope. And before they started reading "facts" off of a pro-weed website, not one of them thought twice about the paper industry. It's a bull****, back-door argument. And, again, it makes everything they say seem invalid -- the same as when states that do legalize for medicinal use immediately see half of the patients use it, not for cancer, but mysterious "chronic pain" or "stress relief." In other words, they lie so they can get medicinal weed, not caring that it makes the entire campaign seem like a lie.
People want to get high, and I just wish they'd come out and say it. Of all the arguments I've ever heard, I've never had a solitary person step up and just say with unmasked honesty, "I want to get stoned without the fear of being arrested." Which is ironic to me because it's the only argument I've ever heard that makes sense. It's the only one that's even remotely logical.
Putting up this front that weed is a magical cure for all things economic not only requires you to bend the truth beyond recognition, but makes it seem like you're admitting that simply wanting to get high is not a valid reason to make it legal. In fact, the cancer patients who do in fact benefit from it wind up becoming the victims of your bull****. When a perfectly healthy guy with dreadlocks and cannabis leaf t-shirts stands up next to the cancer patient and pretends the interests of the cancer patient are all he has in mind, it makes it look like both of them are full of ****.
#3.It's Good for You!
So the picture I'm starting to get is that pot advocates saw the government's old, ridiculous anti-weed propaganda that grossly exaggerated the harm of the drug and decided that the best way to combat that was to simply tell equally silly lies in the opposite direction. So in my lifetime I've seen the argument go from "pot isn't as bad as other illegal drugs" to "it doesn't hurt you" to literally saying weed is "good for you." You know, like it's Vitamin C or calcium.
For instance, when various studies showed that THC might slow the growth of some tumors (while making others grow faster), all of the studies pointed out that they got their results by injecting the chemical and not getting lab rats to smoke joints (a pretty major difference). Yet, pot advocates immediately took those results and translated them into endless headlines asserting that smoking weed "cures cancer." Never mind that all of these studies on the positive side effects of TCH and other chemicals in cannabis go way out of their way to tell you that this does not mean that smoking weed will cure your cancer.
That's because on the whole, breathing smoke of any kind, is not good for you. And with pot, you're inhaling smoke into your lungs and holding it there for a long time, and that's going to damage the tissue. In fact, just three joints a day do as much damage to the lungs as twenty cigarettes. We can be fair and cite this study saying there is no connection between cancer and smoking marijuana. Though we could also cite the studies that have found the opposite to be true.
But even if we take cancer off the table, there are a whole host of negative effects we can list. Right after smoking, the average heart rate increases between 20% to 100%, and that effect can last up to three hours -- your risk of heart attack shoots up fivefold within the first hour of using. If you have anxiety disorders, there's even more bad news. It's being found more and more that modern pot can actually cause panic attacks, and is a high risk for triggering an already existing condition. In the still-growing brains of younger smokers, it can stunt basic emotional development and promote paranoia. And just on the whole, users are far more likely to come down with illnesses and miss work than non-users. One of the biggest debates right now is whether younger users are at higher risk for the emergence of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia.com cites 30 studies that show a connection.
But again, I'm not trying to fall back to the government's "one joint will drive you insane" scaremongering. Pot is not as bad as heroin. That isn't my point. But don't go the other way and start acting like the **** is broccoli.
It's at this point that someone always brings up...
#2. Alcohol and Tobacco are Worse, and They're Legal!
Yep, booze and cigarettes are pretty bad for you. Deadly, even, if they're abused. Hell, I had a doctor tell me straight up that if I didn't quit drinking entirely, I'd be dead within the next five years. I've never heard a doctor tell someone that about their weed smoking. Drunk driving and smoking-related lung cancer have literally killed millions.
In fact, here's a not-at-all-retarded rebuttal from a legalization advocate in response to a "Foundation for a Drug-Free World" pamphlet that claims pot is more dangerous than alcohol. In case you didn't read that, it's exactly what you'd expect from a site that runs its articles over a background of marijuana leaf gifs, versus a highly generalized and exaggerated claim from an organization that is obviously anti-pot. The argument being, "Pot is worse than booze!" "Nuh-uh, alcohol is worse!"
But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't matter.
Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.
If the argument is that pot is the safer choice, then by that rationale, it's also safer than deep-throating a cactus or blowing a rattlesnake. Is someone obligating you to choose between the two? There's not a third option of just not doing either of them? That has baffled me for years, and I still don't understand it. But I've heard it. A lot. As if the legalization of one unhealthy activity obligates us to legalize every single thing that's less lethal than that.
You have to remember that the people who have the power to change these laws are old, rich, stuffy white guys who for the most part don't smoke weed. When they hear rebuttals like this, they're picturing a six year old kid stomping his foot and screaming at his mother, "Why can't I play that game? Jimmy's mom lets him play GTA, and that's way worse!" The end result is still that you're arguing for the right to make things worse than they were before.
#1.It's not Addictive!
Of course, the thing that scares society about any drug, and the thing that makes alcohol and tobacco so deadly, is addiction. This is crucial to any argument for legalization, because you can't talk about "freedom" to use some product if that same product in fact takes away your ability to freely choose to stop using it. You don't hear people at AA meetings sit around and reflect on how awesome it is that they have the freedom to drink.
Here, I have to admit my own personal experience bias -- my brother used to love giving me that "it's not addictive" line as he was lighting up his tenth one-hitter, with four hours of sunlight left in the day. He couldn't go more than a couple of hours without lighting up, but he's probably just an isolated case, right?
It's been suggested that because most users aren't habitual, the majority of people will never develop a severe dependency on pot. Much in the same way that not everyone who drinks will become an alcoholic. In fact, according to that link, about 15% of drinkers will develop a major dependency, as opposed to around 9% of marijuana users.
That's just the statistics for "severe" addictions. They claim that between 10% and 30% of marijuana smokers will at least fall into a minor addiction. Note that neither of those statistics are 0%. You know, the threshold for "not addictive."
This is where my brother loves to bring up our uncle... I'll call him Thundercock Soulpuncher. Uncle Thundercock smoked pot his entire adolescent life during the 1960s and 70s, and when he decided to file away his partying days and join the adult world, he had no problem at all stepping away from weed. But studies from 1983 to present show that the average THC level (the chemical in pot that gives the buzz) back then was about 4%. The same group found that over the last few decades, the seized pot they studied had risen to over 10%, with some plants as high as 30%. It's predicted that in the next five to ten years, that average will reach around 15% before it hits a plateau.
What's that mean? It means you get higher faster, using less of the drug. It also means that younger, inexperienced smokers have a higher chance of addiction than ol' Thundercock because they're smoking stickier ****.
Now, once again, it's widely believed that pot is much easier to quit than smoking, booze, heroin, and just about every other drug out there. But the belief that "it's not addictive" is bull****. Want an easy way to see if you're addicted? Give it up for a year. I have a feeling that would be tough for a lot of you, considering how many can't go one week without working it into a conversation. It's tough to give up something that you've built your entire personality around.
But just keep in mind: if you want to see a day when the cops won't hassle you for smoking it, you're going to need to be a lot smarter about how you argue the issue, that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm one of those that started smoking the good stuff (30%) in late 90's which started and catch fame in the mid of 2005 I recently quit smoking I have a year and 3 month's so........
Sent from my powered Shooter E3D with Infection of AnthraX Jamz by wolf.
Weed cures and helps in many ways there's a lot worse substances that are legal than weed, although its much legal here (Cali) because its legal medically but then all those strong medications gets tranferrrd down to us , anyways weed is acctually better for your body than cigarettes and alchool, the only known issue with weed is it makes your maturity stop for the period your smoking but then it goes back to normal that only applies tho if smoked before age 22, its perfectly fine.to drive on, no wrecks on dui of bud, but lots from alchool, its not bad for your lungs it actually cures them believe it or not if you smoke as much weed if not more than tabacoo you smoke, your lungs will stay normal, the doctor couldn't believe I smoked half a pack day the miracles.of weed, and another thing, weed is not ****en addictive! I think its some thing like 5% gets addicted, only because they become dependent on it after thier treatment is over, I smoked everyday at least a quad a week of good dank cali bud for like 2 years then stopped for a whole year with no urges or anything, I know what it means to be addicted I can't handle one day with out a cigarette hardest thing ever I've done it like twice I wanted to kill myself, smoke weed not tabacoo
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
all I can say 420 sucked this year. I'm not a big party guy like was before but when the legal weed or aka spice became so big where I'm at to the point people have actually died on 420 this year. Stick with the og peoples.
that stoner works at circle k w/ICS
-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
And hipkat pot is not addicitive in tthe same way as nicotine, booze or heroin it is habit forming but when you quit there are no physical effects. I've smoked off and on for the last 15 years and never once had a problem going without it for anywhere from a few days to 2 or 3 years. I have also been addicted to painkillers after a surgery and after about 20 hours without am opiate in your system you feel like you have the worst flu in the world, chills, sweats, fever, diarrhea, vomiting, blurry vision, aches and pains etc. Alcohol withdrawal can be deadly, it causes seizures and can even result in coma. Nicotine withdrawal gives you migraines, diarrhea, sweats and shakes. Marijuana withdrawal you may not be as hungry all the time and you may not sleep as much, but there are no health risks or discomfort from it. Anyone who tells you marijuana is physically addicitive is a) a fearmonger and b) a flatout liar, there is absolutely 0 medical evidence to back their claims up because it is simply a scaretactic created by the anti drug nuts to keep the people from wanting it legalized by turning it into some kind of monster akin to heorin or cocaine.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I smoke weed, bro....
HipKat said:
I smoke weed, bro....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do on occasion, haven't since Xmas but I used to smoke all day every day. Never had a problem when I needed or wanted to quit. Now the oxycodone after my surgeries was another story, when I'd run out of that I was about ready to kill someone for another one. When I came off of them it was the worst 2 weeks of my life and the longest month before my head got back to normal.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
TBH, I rarely smoke anymore, but not having weed was never a problem for me, even when I was chronic,and I always have had very high standards when it comes to what I smoke.
Now, Marlboro's is another story
I only smoke dank always have since the first time I smoked, schwagg makes me sick, literally gives me a headache and makes my stomach hurt. I get mine from my mom, she grows her own, but I haven't seen her since Xmas cuz I flipped my car in Jan and haven't gotten a new one yet and she lives about 70 miles from me. When I reup to I'm gonna be fried cuz its been so long since I've smoked. Gonna have to roll 2 blunts and get out the 1ft double chambered headphyre
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
jrollercoasters said:
Weed cures and helps in many ways there's a lot worse substances that are legal than weed, although its much legal here (Cali) because its legal medically but then all those strong medications gets tranferrrd down to us , anyways weed is acctually better for your body than cigarettes and alchool, the only known issue with weed is it makes your maturity stop for the period your smoking but then it goes back to normal that only applies tho if smoked before age 22, its perfectly fine.to drive on, no wrecks on dui of bud, but lots from alchool, its not bad for your lungs it actually cures them believe it or not if you smoke as much weed if not more than tabacoo you smoke, your lungs will stay normal, the doctor couldn't believe I smoked half a pack day the miracles.of weed, and another thing, weed is not ****en addictive! I think its some thing like 5% gets addicted, only because they become dependent on it after thier treatment is over, I smoked everyday at least a quad a week of good dank cali bud for like 2 years then stopped for a whole year with no urges or anything, I know what it means to be addicted I can't handle one day with out a cigarette hardest thing ever I've done it like twice I wanted to kill myself, smoke weed not tabacoo
Sent from my PC36100 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's really difficult to not make rude comments, but I'm trying...
-EViL-KoNCEPTz- said:
I only smoke dank always have since the first time I smoked, schwagg makes me sick, literally gives me a headache and makes my stomach hurt. I get mine from my mom, she grows her own, but I haven't seen her since Xmas cuz I flipped my car in Jan and haven't gotten a new one yet and she lives about 70 miles from me. When I reup to I'm gonna be fried cuz its been so long since I've smoked. Gonna have to roll 2 blunts and get out the 1ft double chambered headphyre
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've always been a light smoke. A bong hit or two and I'm good. Just enough to make bass deeper and the blues bluer..
HipKat said:
I've always been a light smoke. A bong hit or two and I'm good. Just enough to make bass deeper and the blues bluer..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've always been a heavy smoker, but I'm 6'7" 220lbs and have a really high metabolism, I can drink a 5th of crown black and still walk str8(that's y I usually drink Jim beam special 160proof) it takes a good blunt or joint to get me buzzed and 2 or 3 full bowls to the head if Im smoking the bong or my spoon pipe
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium
Thread Closed....420 is over