What is your preferred method of smoking weed? I have been using a gravity bong but with a really small bowl and I find it to be very economical and effective.
>inb4 degenerates normies reeNo I am not dealing with this shit ITT. Let me lay it out for you. I respect that you don't like to smoke but not if you are gonna shill the drugs are bad meme because you can't get any or whatever. It's just like the "guns shoot people" not "people shoot people" logic that takes the blame away from the abuser in order to make blanket generalizations about the substance or weapon itself. You are causing great damage to your society just by using this thought process at all, just for an ego boost you don't deserve. Hold people accountable for their shit, starting with you and then your pot head dad/mom/sister/gf/whatever. It is a legal treatment for autism for christ's sake. Pic related and go shitpost elsewhere.
>>24292064
>literally acknowledging the 'drugs are harmless, and if they make you retarded, it's totally the fault of the abusers' lack of self-control, and not of the substance's effects on the brain' free will fallacy and yet having the nerve to request of us to ignore it
Wow.
Grav bong and joints are the best in my mind
hose vape. I have an Arizer V-Tower, works very well
one hitter quitter
>>24292064
cant stop laughing at this dumbass pic
wtf?
>>24292147
this
>>24292064
op, how do you know that smoking weed has not had an adverse affect on you? have you considered who you would be if you didnt spend so much time stupifying yourself, and instead doing something worthwhile?
>>24292147
In other words, even disregarding your other morally indefensible tactics such as 'I'm going to literally, directly ask you to ignore my bad choices and hope for the lone shameless of this request to leave you stunned enough to comply'... Your pseudo-argument is basically that we should collectively pretend that a substance that affects your priorities and choices doesn't do that, because those choices are attributable to 'the person themselves'. It's literally asking to allow evil things to happen and justifying it with 'those evil things are made under the evildoers' free will'. It's stunning.
You're one of the shittiest people I've ever met, OP, and I only know you from one post.
>>24292288
I mean, I'm sorry for triple-posting, but 'hold people accountable for their shit'. Holy shit. 'Hey, I'm going to do something stupid, and I'm going to tell you that it's fine because I'm daring you to hold me accountable for its consequences'. That's industrial-grade sophistry.
>>24292412
What the fuck are you even talking about. You holding someone accountable has nothing to do with whether or not they suffer any consequences.
We aren't talking about opiate abuse here. Just weed. If someone steals from their parents to get money for weed, you hold them accountable, you don't blame the weed you blame the stupid little shit who decided to steal. That's my only point.
>>24292526
Again, it's this kind of belief in free will that keeps the society backwards, not some sort of blaming the person, which you implied in the OP. You're saying that as soon as an abuser of a substance does something wrong, we should neatly terminate our investigation whether the substance (even as 'harmless' as cannabis) had a causal hand in it, and promptly declare and possibly punish the person. It is it that's truly immoral. It's like euthanizing every person with a contagious disease instead of trying to identify the disease carrier.
>>24292064
Fucking degenerates and their weed. Go back to highschool.
>>24292064
Vape pen that uses flowers not oil
Double percalator bong
King size slim joint with tip
>>24292659
You're not giving people enough credit and this is why they think it's acceptable to paint themselves as victims whenever someone calls them out on their shit. Again I am not suggesting we approach all drugs this way or that everybody should smoke weed.
>>24292659
>not some sort of blaming the perso
*of blaming the substance
In other words, OP, you're basically self-incriminating (and incriminating every other drug user, too) just because you privately hope that such incrimination won't eventually affect your capacity to smoke anyway, whilst the misplaced efforts to 'punish the smokers, not the weed' won't result in discovery of substances' genuine harmful effects which might lead to their stricter control.
You are shit and a manipulator.
>>24292715
>pen vape for flowers
those never work well, either get a better vape or vape oil
I rarely smoke bud now I've been just smoking wax, recently got some shatter it's the best :3 can't wait to go home and play fallout 4 & dab
>>24292729
>You're not giving people enough credit
Science has no place for free will. If use of cannabis eventually, at the end of the day, results in the correlation with socially undesirable effects such as worse education or worse relationships, it doesn't matter one whit whether I 'should' have given them credit or if they were on some magical level 'able' to choose not to let those adverse effects happen. If statistically, smoking harms society, regardless of some existential 'choice' of individuals involved to do otherwise, it should be prevented, end of story.
Fucker.
>>24292738
>genuine harmful effects which might lead to their stricter control.
It's decriminalized because it has helpful effects too. Unlike alcohol, cigarettes, things you never see people complain about on /r9k/ because they are legal.
Shills get fucked. You're not even shilling correctly.
>>24292064
I vape most of the time but I have a bong for when I want to get blasted. Also as someone who worked in middle management your pic relates hard.
>>24292822
So how would you solve the obesity epidemic in the US? What would be your first approach?
Hard mode: You can't force people to eat specific things at certain times of the day or implement eugenics.
>>24292927
Why those arbitrary 'can't's? What are you trying to prove, anyway?
Literally any potential future change in the material makeup of the world, from passing a law to physically altering fat people's genes, would have specific, foreseeable consequences.
All I'm asking for is not to use the free will cop-out, because it is a tautology and a non-contribution. 'Hey, if people choose to be fat, they will be fat.' 'Hey, if people choose to diet, they won't be fat.' The premise equals he conclusion here, and so it's irrelevant (and can't be used in justification of the given habit, either, through implying that 'it's harmless, because people just need to free will it out of existence').
>>24293006
>(and can't be used in justification of the given habit, either, through implying that 'it's harmless, because people just need to free will it out of existence')
The way you're implying that cannabis is harmless, because you cut the causal chain in half at the point of cannabis meeting the brain, blaming the latter.
>>24293006
Honestly, you can't "save" society from free will. It's not in jeopardy, maybe rampant capitalism is taking it's toll but if you're just saying people needed to be led around by the nose in life in order for society to function, that's not really a functional society if people aren't able to make the right decision on their own.
Bong is hands down my favorite, but I don't like my place smelling like weed so I use a mflb, a small vaporizer.
>>24293064
Do you have any experience with weed at all? There is a difference between "Smoking is bad, it cuts off oxygen supply to the brain and is carcinogenic" which is a fact only stupid people cannot accept. But if the benefit outweighs the risk FOR SOME, and they aren't making shitty decisions like stealing, lying, basically shit you'd need to be a bad person to do in the first place, why is it so important to discredit them and focus on the people who use it as a justification for shitty behavior?
>>24293144
W-what?
I'm not sure you understand the significance of free will in this discussion.
I'm not saying that I want to limit anyone's freedom, because freedom is a meaningless concept. I mean that in causal discussion, i.e. one about things' consequences, premises must be rooted in matter, else they are meaningless. I mean that in discussion, relying on free will elucidates nothing. Almost everyone has problems grasping this. 'It depends on you if you let this substance affect you' is not a statement and, for all the good feels of self-governance and responsibility it evokes, it is harmful, because it implies causal immunity, imperviousness to external factors. This is HIGHLY dangerous. 'It depends on the dose/your brain/your environment/your grandma/your cat/...' is a valid, verifiable statement though.
>>24293322
Okay well again, it seems like your lack of (positive) experience with drugs in general, I have been dealing with a loved one who has an opiate problem and in that context you're absolutely right. But when it comes to light/legal shit that at worst will make someone irritable if they don't have any, no, you're not doing anyone any favors by grouping these things together and ignoring the ways they can help people, even if it's just to enable them socially or allieviate stress/agoraphobia/etc.
>>24293247
>[if] they aren't making shitty decisions like stealing, lying, basically shit you'd need to be a bad person to do in the first place
Aren't you one fucking fount of fallacies.
First, a tautology. 'Weed is harmless if it doesn't harm anyone (i.e., if it doesn't cause bad choices).' An outcome is harmless if it's by definition free from any bad corollaries. Well, surprise.
Second, somehow implying that cannabis' consequences on bad people aren't going to aggravate their bad behaviour, and if they are, it's somehow of no concern anyway (what the fuck).
>>24292064
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED
LMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOO
DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUDE
>>24293418
>ignoring the ways they can help people, even if it's just to enable them socially or allieviate stress/agoraphobia/etc
You're accusing ME of ignoring outcomes when it's consistently been you that ignores the possibility of connections between smoking and behaviour?
I've so far somehow checked my desire to use 'literally' in 'you are scum', but I am truly tempted.
>>24293418
>when it comes to light/legal shit that at worst will make someone irritable
And again, cutting the discussion in half. 'I'm not talking about the arbitrary severe consequences, I'm talking about the arbitrary mild consequences. What, are you denying that if we only consider mild consequences, those consequences are mild? You're biased!'
Just leave this thread (and /r9k/), you're a joke.
>>24293481
All you're saying here is "Don't ignore the bad shit that it does, if it does anything bad at all then it's bad" and my point is just the opposite. I really don't understand what you have invested in this or why, but you might as well go ahead and use your ad homs because you sound like a controlling smug fuck anyway.
>>24293525
>All you're saying here is "Don't ignore the bad shit that it does, if it does anything bad at all then it's bad" and my point is just the opposite.
>ask people to arbitrarily disregard harmful consequences of a substance
>'hey dude, you can't do that!'
>tell the person who says that that they're engaging in tautologies because all they're saying is that if something is harmful, then it is harmful
I have run out of epithets. You are just a vile person and I genuinely hope that that person you 'loved' has long left you.
>>24292064
Out of your bong with your weed and your gf while you're at work.
>>24293593
>You are just a vile person and I genuinely hope that that person you 'loved' has long left you.
Well pot, meet kettle. Although I'm guessing this vitriol comes from the fact that you never had anyone to be abandoned by to begin with.
>>24293876
Straight savage senpai.
Fixed the image for you OP
Fuck you druggie normie btw
>>24294098
Hey look, I don't have a dick in my mouth anymore thanks.
