Weird, in an interesting way.
Don't know what to say, Bill O'Riely has already said it for me.

Just say NO! (Oh Yeah!)

Ah... good ol' Bill... x)

*shoots him*

Uhh...maybe I'm being conservative, but have you read the little chunk of it on the site? They basically say pot is not okay for kids, but fine for adults.

Maybe if you use it sparingly and responsibly it's alright, but I'm very anti-drug. I don't like the book at all. I agree that children shouldn't be scared into not using it, but they shouldn't be told that in 5 years they can without an issue. It's stupid.

The people should not be afraid of it's government. The government should be afraid of it's people. -V

Actually, it's not. You've been terribly brainwashed, dear Nichole, and for that I am sincerely woeful. Most anything is dangerous in the hands of a complete idiot, but let us not blame the thing itself for harm caused. In any case, drinking beer does the body loads more harm than smoking a joint. "Guns don't kill, people do" just as marijuana doesn't run people over on the highway--idiots do.

But hey--my opinion, as always.

PS: Everybody run and go read Reefer Madness. It'll do your soul good.

I know that marijuana isn't all that dangerous, but I also don't think people should smoke or drink on a regular basis. Everything is addictive and people need to be careful about things. I don't think we should be teaching our children that any substance is okay.

The people should not be afraid of it's government. The government should be afraid of it's people. -V

I can see your point, and it's valid. I myself wouldn't smoke marijuana for the simple fact that I feel no need to do so. I think what it boils down to is a question of whether the government has any right to tell us what we can do and what can't, a question which tends to anger many who realize that Uncle Sam seems to make that decision based on which company gives him the most money.

Anything is bad in excess.

Although I would say I have a soft spot for marijuana in particular since it has a terrible rep which it does not deserve, and there are so many benefits to both the environment, health care, and our economy to be reaped from legalizing it.

Hemp. It's much easier on the soil than cotton, you can get four times as much paper from it as trees, strong fibers for clothes, shoes, jeans, etc. And there's no way to get high from it - but it got banned alongside pot because they're related species.

The whole anti-pot craze first started in the border towns in the American Southwest. It was seen as a Mexican drug and thus its ban would give police an excuse to arrest Mexicans. However, this didn't really start the anti-pot sentiments of today. You see hemp was the second-most-used fabric in the US after cotton. In the 1930's Dupont - a major chemical corporation that's still around today - managed to get the synthetic and chemical-heavy Nylon to reach third. Problem was that Hemp was keeping nylon from expanding and cutting into cotton's profits. You see, cotton's one of those crops that's chemical-intensive to grow in large quantities - from nitrate and phosphorous-laden inorganic fertilizers to complex chemical pesticide cotton needs a lot more than just TLC. So, to boost profits and production of its two favorite materials, Dupont started lobbying for the illegalization of marijuana and hemp - because it looked like marijuana. To aid them in gathering up public support they sponsored a little film known as Reefer Madness! Well, between their propaganda campaign and their ability to buy political support they pulled it off and got hemp banned along with pot. God bless Amerika.

I don't smoke up, but all this schemeing and plotting on behalf of major corporations to determine what we can or can't do is um, whatdoya call it... "enraging." That's it, I find it enraging.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

*nods* All true, except marijuana and hemp are interchangeable--they are the same plant. Hemp lacks the intoxicating properties of "marijuana" (the name given to cannabis sativa by the Mexicans) because of the way it is grown.

It's interesting that we all love pot and hemp and want it legal as the dickens, but we don't use it... (pot, that is. not hemp)

Would any of you ever consider trying it? Has anyone here tried it?

Personally, I stay away from that kind of thing because I know that drugs and people who are depressed, self-loathing, and overly anxious do not mix at all. I started drinking in ninth grade and within two weeks of stealing a gulp from my parents' cabinet I couldn't make it through school without drinking in the morning.

Pull down the future with the one you love.
~Television.

It affects everyone differently, I don't do it for 3 reasons. I can't stand the taste of it mixed with tobacco and smoking it pure is expensive and not very healthy (not that smoking it with tobacco is healthy).
I don't find it really effects me much, the few times I have done it I have been extremely dissapointed.
Plus I don't generally agree with drugs, if possible I try to steer clear of anything more than alchohol.

And while alot of people will disagree with me here, Joey your point about wether the government has the right to tell us what we can and cannot do, I think to an extent they do, and that is what they are there for.
If we were totally self reliant and nothing we did affected anybody else then sure no one should have the right to tell us what we can and cannot do, but when we depend on our governments for so many things, and so much of the stuff that we do affects everyone around us then there need to be rules about what is right and what is wrong.
Otherwise who would decide that it is wrong to kill another human, or to rape someone.
Obviously it is undecided where the line is, at what stage the government or anybody else has the right to be involved in our lives. But this will always be a grey area.

(This was a bit of a tired ramble might not make much sense) (Sorry)

Like I said, I don't think I would try it because I feel no need to do so. Not even curiosity, really. I honestly don't care what smoking a joint feels like; although, I do feel adamantly about people's right to reap the benefits of it. If that means a few people are going to stay home and get high all day, so be it--the government doesn't seem to mind when whinos and drunks do it.

If anything, hemp farms could always be federally-owned or regulated in order to help prevent the spread of the "marijuana" of which people are so afraid. But there's no quick cash to be gained in that, so the government doesn't give a flying f*ck: that's the blunt truth. Not to mention that to legalize the farming of cannabis would force the government to admit "Hehe... MJ really isn't as bad as we said it was... we were just perpetuating the charade to keep ourselves from looking bad! Gotcha!" We can't have that, now can we?

Red, it's true that it is not easy to draw the line at which government control should end and personal choice should begin. However, no government, no matter how dependent we become on it, has the right to lie to the governed, taking advantage of ignorance for its own agenda which obviously does not involve making choices that would greatly benefit our country. The dangers of mj have been blown sky-high out of proportion by presidents, congressmen, and the media (assuming there's a difference); and the eco-salvaging benefits of it have been blotted out and ridiculed as myth simply to keep the system as a whole from being "wrong" or looking bad. That is outrageous, and no one should have to put up with it.

And you can hardly compare planting some cannabis to murder. That's sick.

Red, not to beat up on you or anything, but what you seem to be arguing is that society requires a seperate body to control everyone and set down a sort of universal code of ethics. But why do we need to be controlled in the first place? I can personally say that I see no need for myself to be controlled - I don't want to hurt anyone - likewise, I'm more than willing to extend that offer to just about everyone else. If someone tries to infringe upon my freedoms, then I'll fight back, and if others feel solidarity with my plight, they can aid too. And if they are suffering, well, "an injury to one is an injury to all" as they say, so, to preserve their freedom (indirectly preserving my own as well) I will aid them. It's not a matter of "good" or "evil" or of right and wrong, it's a matter of universal soveriegnty; of individual freedom; of collective human rights. Mutual aid, as was proved in the Ukraine in 1917-1920 as was proved in Spain from 1936-1939, as is being proved in Chiapas, Mexico from 1994 to the present, is more than a adequete replacement for the state.

Would we kill and rape one another without the men in the suits to tell us what we can or can't do? Are we all psychotic serial killers and vicious rapists just waiting for an opportunity when the cops have their backs turned so we can strike? I think the vast, vast, vast majority of people don't murder or attack others because they just don't want to. And in those instances where they may be tempted, often times its their own sense of morality that stops them. This isn't to say that people will never kill one another, but that the cops or the government or anyone else can do very little to prevent it from happening. They may punish it afterwards, but if someone's gonna try and kill somebody, chances are they either: a) do it in the heat of the moment and NO ONE can stop that or b) they think they'll get away with it (and again, you can't stop them from trying then, can you?)

Also, who says there is a universal set of values that are right and wrong? Sure we can agree on what values we personally interpret as "good" and "evil" but how does that brand those ideas upon the flesh of the cosmos? "Well, we need a universal morality," you might say (not to put words in your mouth Red), but simply because we need something doesn't make it real. A woman is lost in the desert and truly needs there to be an oasis over the next dune. She crawls to the top and finds there to be none. She dies of thirst. The sad fact of it all is that the universe doesn't seem to care about our needs, no matter how dire they may be. Neither does our agreement as humans make some abstract ideas permanent tenants of the universe. Think of all the fallen kingdoms, shattered republics, and destroyed dictatorships that have risen and fallen over the years. Are we still bound by their morality?

States have as much authority as either: a) we acknowledge or b) they back up with force. The question is, what do we let them get away with?

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Crap, on second thought, this seems pretty tangential and rambling itself... hmmm... if anyone thinks its too off topic, I'll just erase it.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

It's fine. Perfectly fine.

I see what your saying Sinn, and what you are talking about would be fantastic in an ideal world... but humans arn't like that.

If we had no control I think we would essentially be devolving as a people. Abiding only to rules that we set ourselves according to our morals(and obviousy everyones are different), seperating into groups according to what we think is right and wrong even more so than we already are, "fighting back" when we think people are infringing on our freedoms. Ofcourse I don't think we are ALL rapists and murderers, but alot of people out there are, and I believe that number would hugely increase without a government and without the rules they set down. Without the threat of being arrested or what have you things would change. Say a group of strong and/or armed people want food, there is no threat of being arrested if they beat up that shop keeper and took his food, the only thing they have to worry bout is him fighting back, and he is clearly outnumbered... whats to stop them? The world would be taken over by whichever groups happen to be the strongest or have the most weopons or the most man power. They would each enforce their power on certain areas (like our governments do in countries now) only they would be ruling by force.

If everyone was perfect sure it would be great but in this world... well... have you seen the Mad Max movies lol? Obviously wouldn't be as extreme as that but with no control and no strong unity I think there would be chaos.

This all sounds a bit crazy and weird, I know what I want to say in my head but it won't come out right lol. Hopefully you get what I'm saying.

In Chicago the impoverished black populations had to deal with perhaps the most repressive armed group in the USA - The chicago police department. There's been a recent study that the courts suppressed that was written by an appellate court judge. It proves that the CPD has been torturing people into false confessions for over 3 decades

here's a couple of stories on the matter (though I couldn't find the report, sorry):
- http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=30&ItemID=5645
- http://www.counterpunch.org/allen01062006.html

What they did is formed "Self Defense Associations." They'd have armed patrols that weren't there to enforce the laws of the state (normally centered around protecting the ruling class' precious private property) but rather to keep the pigs and the gangs from f*cking with the people.

In spain, during a civil war with fascists backed by Hitler and Mussolini the 3,000,000 Anarchists of Spain (yes there were that many) revolted. While they set up autonomous, collectively owned factories for production, they also formed "Worker's Militias" to stop murder, rape, and arson. The people didn't want to die or get raped, so they handled the problem themselves, rather than depend upon the protection of the state.

During the Great Depression, there were Government Camps set up for refugees of the dust bowl. Tens of thousands of families fled their farms after the bank foreclosed on them, and a small perentage were able to get into these camps. The camps had no laws or rules save those set up by the inhabitants. The people set up "Security Councils" that anyone could join or leave at any time. These groups would work out some problems like domestic disputes, petty theft, etc. through gathering the involved parties and talking through the issue. One thing they couldn't have was violence, as the nearby companies (sick of the organizing power of these camps and realizing full well that the more desperate the people, the less they'll work for) would pay some poor shmoe to go into the camp and start something so the police could shut the camp down. The security councils would surround anyone who tried to start a fight,and then they'd move in unison towards the gates. Once there, they'd through the kid on his ass.

Basically, there's many ways around simply obeying the state like a brainwashed drone - we can take matters into our own hands to solve problems like rape and murder. But rather than having some distant, overarching body like the state appoint unelected police officers who are themselves above the law, we can directly and democratically solve these matters, ensuring that those who protect us are afforded no greater power or privilege than the rest of us.

Also, not to be a prick, but you never answered my question as to what gives governments the right to impose their morality on us.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Part of me stands behind the case protestors are making for Gary Freeman, but I find it hard to sympathize entirely with him without any details that at least point in the direction of his innocence. It's a slippery slope because, on the one hand, I don't think it's right to (try to) kill someone whether they deserve it or not; but, on the other, I feel it might be equally wrong to deny a man a fair trial whether he ultimately deserves one or not.

You've mentioned this concept before, and I like it. But for the sake of argument, wouldn't relying on community support and general consensus resurrect the issues in Federalist Paper #10 (factions)? Within the context of a desperate situation, general agreement to work for the common good a community is almost certain; but wouldn't it be a horse of a different color once complacency settles in and the cycle of ambition is renewed?

Well I think we give them the right to impose their morality on us (to an extent obviously). If 99% of a country didn't want a government and felt strongly enough to do something about it then obviously there would be no government in that country (external influences not withstanding).
But as it stands we elect governments and I am pretty sure that the majority of people in most countries would rather have a government or some sort of ruling system rather than no. Even if the government doesn't have exactly the same views on morality people would rather have a government than not.

And obviously I am not saying that with a government all the problems go away, there will still be crooked people/groups who manage to work outside the law, but this would be 10 times worse without a government I reckon.

And even though there may be plenty of examples of the ideals you are talking about in action, they are isolated examples in countries that have a government... and I don't think you (the general you not you you) can say something works without government because it works in an isolated occasion in a country that has government.

The only example I can really give for what I am saying is Iraq, when government dissapeared they completely collapsed...

I am really having problems putting what I want to say into words today :S don't know why...

(In response to the first part of Joey's last post - I'll get to yours red and the rest of hers in a minute - damn homework.)

To be fair, I thought that they had to provide evidence of his guilt. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

But doesn't that whole mess smell of a set-up? I mean, a member of "the red squad" a department of the CPD whose very name is synonomous with the illegal spying, false imprisonment, and assassination of people based on the color of their skin and their political beliefs claims to have been shot at by someone that the officer had been committing illegal acts against! What better way of covering up your own crimes than by prosecuting the ones who are most able to testify against you? Besides, just like in the Peltier and Mumia Abu Jamal cases, it seems to be standard procedure for repressive police departments to take a case of a murdered cop and pin it on the closest radical they can find. Anyway, what I'm saying is that I'm loathe to trust a murder trial where the only evidence seems to be the testimony of one man - let alone a man who has plenty of reason to lie. And I certainly don't think it's likely that a man who opens up on a cop goes on to lead 35 years of completely peaceful, law-abiding activity. This whole thing just sets me real ill at ease.

It's not unlike what often happens at large demonstrations - the cops use violence and perform illegal mass arrests on the crowds. Then they shield themselves from prosecution by setting everyone on trumped up charges like assualting an officer or inciting a riot, etc. Once these charges are in place, the cops make it clear that they won't press the charges so long as the protestors don't make any moves to prosecute the department for harassment, illegal arrests, police brutality, etc.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Marijuana in and of itself is not dangerous; it's the misuse of marijuana that's the problem. Marijuana is easily addictive, and does develop a tolerance level. It's really better to ban its use and keep people off of it than have more people on it. I have seen many people use it and it messes them up.
In traditional ceremonies of the native cultures, marijuana was used very sparingly, because they knew it was dangerous. From what I've heard, there are more toxic chemicals in marijuana than in rat poison.

Quamp's discount manga/anime fan fiction
The Texas Conventions a Collection of artwork I've collected over various conventions.

I know the expression, too, Sinn. :p I personally think that the absence of incriminating evidence is not as convincing as the presence of exonerating evidence is all. But "to'may'to-to'mah'to."

To be sure, it's pretty easy to sum up that he's simply an innocent target judging from the above; I just find it difficult because I try so very hard not to make assumptions about anything.

Exactly.

And that's probably where you have an advantage over me - open-mindedness is key. I just swear I've seen this sort of set-up before. It seems, at least, all-too-familiar.

And in response to Quamp, I've seen friends hide from life through pot. I've seen 'em hide through alcohol and cocaine too. People can run from things using just about everything - though some things are worse for your health than others. I've seen plenty of friends use pot to relax, same goes for alcohol. Hell, even had friends further their own personal sense of spirituality and connection with nature through hallucinigens like salvea and 'shrooms. Now they handled the drugs responsibly - carefully alotted their dosage and set a cap on the number of times they used it to minimize the chances of anything going wrong/bad trips. They came back all the better for it, though I'd be damned 'fore I ever made that choice.

I guess what I'm saying is that when people use a substance recreationally, there's generally little harm, but when they start abusing it to get away from the stress of living, well that's another thing entirely. Still, it seems to me that one should get at the root of the problem there - try and help people get past the things that set them runnin' in the first place. Though that may not remove the physical impetus for their flight from reality, it should put a good brake on their psychological motives.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

If something has the potential to quite easily cause permenant problems to physical or mental health I think it needs to be banned or at least made as a prescription or something if it's a drug. Because not all people who get hold of it are going to be responsible with it, not all of them are going to be informed about the dangers of overuse, alot of them may even be kids and the effects could be even worse. You really can't rely on individual human judgement for every little thing. Because we don't know everything, and we do make mistakes.

Individual human judgment is the only type of judgment there is--other humans run the government, humans who time and again have proven to us that what they care about the most is their own personal gain. How are we better off letting them choose for us? The only thing they probably have over the rest of us is a greater amount of education and money with which to fund research and what-not.

The biggest mistake we can make is to seperate government officials from ourselves. The "they" we constantly blame for every little thing is really "us." We are not only to blame for electing them but also for being part of them. We place some of our own bunch on a pedestal and place our blind faith in them only to have them act in their own interest, for their own gain, the fulfillment of their personal agendas. I think it's high time we all start focussing more on arming ourselves with knowledge rather than arming "baby sitters" with power over our lives. We need to stop being ignorant, lazy, greedy sons of b*thces and start working towards making life tolerable for one another rather than sitting back and allowing those who would use their powers selfishly, only thinking of the fruits to be reaped for their own children for however many miserable generations this system will last, to decide the course of our future.

People with too much power tend to do things for the wrong reasons.

*sigh* I need a soda.

But it's not individual with them most of the time. Normally there would be a few people coming up with things together, and even if it is only one person, they have their own department which they are educated in and they are informed about so they can make better decisions.
When I say individual human decisions, I am talking about 1 person making all the decisions for themselves. Obviously there is going to be loads of stuff that person doesn't know about and therefore can't make an educated decision about.
By having people educated in certain areas we get informed decisions in alot of different areas.
For example if you have a computer programmer, he isn't going to know which of those fruits on the table he can eat and which is poisonous. He would much rather have the decision made for him by someone who is educated in that area.

I have to say, Quamp, I agree with you. I know it's not very "rebellious teenager" of me, but no matter what you say about how I've been brainwashed by my various health classes, I don't think that the right for responsible people to "experience" and "experiment" with drugs is reason to open it up for everyone. People I know who smoke pot are not happy, and their habit is just a monkey on their backs.

A lot of people point to America's period of alcohol prohibition and the way it just made the alcohol business go underground, but look what's happening now. Alcohol is a controlled substance, but it is still responsible for hundreds of deaths per day. Legalization isn't a solution.

What I don't like about legislation concerning marijuana is the stigma surrounding it. What is so awful about medicinal marijuana, or just hemp, aside from the dreaded m-word?

Pull down the future with the one you love.
~Television.

That I agree with. What I wouldn't agree with is if you said the fruits specialist had the right to force the programmer to not eat the poison fruit. You're probably thinking that's stupid right about now--why the hell (unless he was suicidal) would the guy pick the poison one now that he knows better? He wouldn't. This isn't about letting every man fend for himself; it's about educating and helping one another without having to relinquish our freedom.

Are you saying that people are perfectly incapable of becoming as educated (if not more educated) than politicians and pool resources together to make good, informed judgements that they could later spread throughout a community?

Now if someone's well-informed and still stupid enough to hurt themselves, well... gee, I guess that's Darwinism at work, ne?

I'm not saying that people arn't capable of becoming as educated as a politician, ofcourse they can, but they couldn't become as educated as a whole government. And if you have educated people forming a community and spreading the information throughout it, unless it was an extremely small community that would be near impossible to work properly. In a "community" the size of England or even worse America I don't think it's possible to have everyone informed about morality, consequences, etc, without some sort of ruling party to set these things down.

But even if you were able to make that work and have everyone fully informed, I don't think that is the main problem. It's the lack of laws that I think would cause the most trouble. The simple fact is that humans are not all good natured, honest, kind, generous, good or any other of the many qualities needed to make that kind of society work.

(And speaking of Darwinism) Without laws it would essentially become a survival of the fittest.

Edit: Missed a bit :) about the forcing him to eat the fruit bit, that is again going back to the grey area. What can be forced on us and what should we be able to choose for ourselves. Can we choose if we want to die? Can we Choose if we want to kill? Can we choose if we want to steal?
I agree that this whole thing is a grey area, but there are things which I think MUST be forced on us (like being arrested for murder etc) and whith people not being able to agree about the line where our freedom stops, it seems like it has to be pretty much all or nothing, and nothing doesn't seem like an option to me.

You guys make my eyes tired. @_@

Someone (I forget who, what with all the scrolling, sorry...I think it was Hairballed Kat...?) asked if anyone has done pot. Erm, not really, but I hang out with A LOT of pot-heads. Erm, I suppose the main thing is that marijuana is an escape for about 90% of them. Most of them have truly effed-up families, and while I wouldn't touch it (not because I think it's evil, I just have no need...yet), they do it out in back of the school. It's not evil to them (as it shouldn't be to any one)...it's just a means of escape.

Sorry if I repeated any one, just had to get my two cents in.

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

No worries, Killi - it's always cool to have a diversity of opinions on these threads. ;)

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

I am such a bad girl. After about a day from posting my reply, I had a magick brownie. Oh, trust me, they taste horrible, which was my first clue they were effed up. That thing had me at least buzzed for about an hour. It was amazing. Everything became seriously loud, I mean, I could hear EVERYTHING. And everything wsas just a colorful blur, especially when it moved really fast. I just sat there, listening to "Enter Sandman" because I couldn't be in gym, I'd just sit there grinning my head off. So I took a zero for the day all because I ate an effed up brownie unbeknownst to me. And the scary part was, I had a piece no bigger than my pinky nail. That means those things were LOADED!

Ah, but it was such a cool experiance....One I suggest you not have because the hangover off those things...Blech. But...yeah....

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

Wow. Thank you for sharing. o_o

I've smoked pot a few times, but ne'er got high.

Then one day I ate a pair of special brownies that my friends had poured a fourth into (twice the normal amount of weed for a batch)... Yeah I had a radio show that night, and, um, things got...interesting XD

Suffice it to say that, having no tolerance for weed, I was kinda wacked out of my gourd and ranting on the show. Furthermore, my sense of reality had a sort of time-lapse. It was like I was only aware of things a few seconds after the fact. I think in the end I managed to make it up to my then-girlfriend's room and she just took care of me for the night.

Yeah, that may be the single most memorable night of my hamilton experience. I don't intend to try pot again, at least not for a while though.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

Nice. ;p

Oh, like you haven't slipped up before. xp

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

I only kid, dear. x3

I meant that as a sort of playful aside, not an angry quip.

Hard to make that inflection with just text.

"And just like that, it was over... The last flames flickered and died amidst the rubble of an empire[.] As the smoke rose into the blackened sky, we realized that the world we had known was gone forever." - Eric "Doc" Griffin on the fall

That had better not be an apology in disguise...

I know you were being playful. I was being playful back. <3

Silly Sinn. ~.~

Silly Sinn Trix are for kids!

...

Now, uh... back to the topic!

Indeed. xD

All I know is I like my hemp sketchbook very much. *hugs it*

Saving the earth one page at a time.

Aaah, good times, good times...

Don't mind me, Joey, I'm the little emo girl who half-saws off her wrists and hands out black roses. I'm a loser like that. XD

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

Just don't go trying to cross any streets after eating those. :p

Erm...oops...?

.:suzu-chan/killijoy/Joeys Cupcake:.
.:"No time for goodbyes," he said, as he faded away. "It's hard to imagine, but one day you'll end up like me." Then he said, "If you want to stay alive, hold on for your life.":.

D'oh! ><

What?

Ooh, black roses. So far, I have not seen one in real life...

---
Brilliant.
---
Shameless plugging, hurray!

Uh, what a stupid idea! It's more effective to scare kids out of trying thier first "hit" than to explain why only "responsible adults" can have it when they are "old enough" They R telling U:"If your a kid avoid it, but if your an adult, help yourself"! Or something like that, U get the idea!

People in stone houses should not throw glass.

Uh, what a stupid idea! It's more effective to scare kids out of trying thier first "hit" than to explain why only "responsible adults" can have it when they are "old enough" They R telling U:"If your a kid avoid it, but if your an adult, help yourself"! Or something like that, U get the idea!

People in stone houses should not throw glass.

oops! my mistake! the computor screwed up

People in stone houses should not throw glass.