Nothing wrong with cotton/wool/whatever. I don’t go out of my way to buy articles made of hemp, but I appreciate that they increase my overall consumer choice, and items made of hemp certainly do have some qualities that make them a good choice for things like shirts that are comfortable in different temperatures. I don’t get hemp clothes from hippy-dippy shops, and they are quite “grown-up”. I guarantee you could not tell them from “regular” clothes without looking at the label (unless of course, you are in possession of El Presidente’s super paranormal clothes ability)
I just don’t see why my consumer choices should be restricted just because a group of nitwits can’t tell the difference between a plant grown for it’s THC content and a plant grown for it’s industrial fibres.
One caveat to what I posted above. If this is your response:
then we need to disband those paramilitary police units just as soon as they have raided your house and with any luck at all shot all of you pets. Then we declare victory in the War on Drugs.
Apologies on the GQ/IMHO mistake. I was forum jumping excessively and misremembered/misattributed. It doesn’t make our guest of honor any less dogmatic or wrong, though.
I would vastly prefer the guitars and percussion to fighting if I lived downstairs from that party. Maybe you’re more comfortable with violence than music but not everyone feels that way.
Having lived downstairs from each, I can tell you, you are wrong. A ten-minute fight between a couple idiots is entirely preferable to a clutch of fucking hippies on a three-hour jam session with guitar, bongo, rain stick and nose flute.
Please stop arguing on behalf of my side. Please. Please, please, please. This hypothetical is the most retarded thing I’ve read all day. It’s approximately as valid and useful a contribution as if El Presidente had suggested that getting high means you’ll end up microwaving a baby. People on pot aren’t automatically amusing geniuses, and people on alcohol aren’t automatically destructive assholes.
Sure, weed doesn’t automatically make people cool and insightful. However, it also never makes people violent or crazed addicts. Alcohol does. So I think there’s a point hidden deep in the hippie talk.
If you’re going to accept violent drunks as an argument against alcohol and in favor of marijuana, then you also have to accept lazy, do-nothing potheads as an argument against marijuana and for alcohol. Personally, I think both characterizations are useless. People who drink alcohol aren’t going to automatically turn into crazy, violent, reckless drunk drivers, just as people who use marijuana aren’t going to automatically become incapable of fulfilling any responsibility.
Here’s the thing … I’ll take 100 lazy do-nothing potheads (who I’ll never even know about because they will be doing nothing) for every violent drunk. So I’m fine with that rationalization.
**Except it’s bullshit. **It’s like saying you’d take 15 lazy Mexican neighbors crammed into one house over 5 violent drug-selling Black ones. It’s *still *racist.
I know what it’s supposed to stand for, those are just what it’s been called for years around my area.