Bangover wrote:"a drunk man comes home and beats his wife, a stoned man comes home and thanks his wife for dinner"

At least a drunk could knock his wife up. Thank Christ pot makes you sterile. The fuckers will take themselves out of the breeding stock.

zykloned wrote:that's a different quote. But I think it was george michael, after he got arrested for sleeping in his car, found with X amount of weed in his car.

If it was George Michael then it doesn't count because he takes it up the chuff and has no authority to speak on marital matters.

Besides, people are making generalisations about drunks now. The angry, wife-beating drunk is only one of a myriad of potential drunks a man can be. This is true to such an extent that I bet there's a 'What type of drunk are you?' Bebo/Facebook application. Sadly, I'm the type of drunk that falls asleep in weird places.

Cannabis doesn't make you sterile.....It can marginally reduce sperm count, this is however temporary and only the case if you are currently smoking and sperm count will return to normal after a period of not smoking.

Also alcohol is also known to reduce sperm count and quality.

Metal Iain wrote:Besides, people are making generalisations about drunks now. The angry, wife-beating drunk is only one of a myriad of potential drunks a man can be.

Irony?

riské

^^^ hehehe

riskay

Metal Iain wrote:Sadly, I'm the type of drunk that falls asleep in weird places.

I know the feeling

Bangover wrote:Cannabis doesn't make you sterile.....It can marginally reduce sperm count, this is however temporary and only the case if you are currently smoking and sperm count will return to normal after a period of not smoking.

Also alcohol is also known to reduce sperm count and quality.

Lies!

Bangover wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:Besides, people are making generalisations about drunks now. The angry, wife-beating drunk is only one of a myriad of potential drunks a man can be.

Irony?

If you mean that I was making generalisations about pot-heads, it's not ironic becase I didn't deny that I was. If anything I encourage generalisations when it comes to things I don't like because it provides an easier target for my disdain.

The Fourth Norseman wrote:riské

Risqué?

Much better! Though, to be fair, I couldn't give a shit how French words are spelt or pornounced in the English language... simply because, if I'm speaking English, why the fuck should I have to speak french as part of the language... all we did was nick their words, lets pronounce em like British people!!! BON JORE!!! ahaha I used to love doing french at school when people couldn't pronounce the words in a French way, just some garbled english/retard sounds came out

thrash metal maniac wrote:Much better! Though, to be fair, I couldn't give a shit how French words are spelt or pornounced in the English language... simply because, if I'm speaking English, why the fuck should I have to speak french as part of the language... all we did was nick their words, lets pronounce em like British people!!! BON JORE!!! ahaha I used to love doing french at school when people couldn't pronounce the words in a French way, just some garbled english/retard sounds came out

I knew it wasn't right but I couldn't be ringed finding out how to spell it.

I do quite like pronouncing French words properly but my knowledge of French is incredibly limited. If you use phrases like coup d’état or raison d'être but without any hint of a French accent it just seems wrong. I suppose its for similar reasons that I want to hit English people when they mispronounce loch. I'd sooner hear lake than 'lock'.

Metal Iain wrote:

Bangover wrote:

Metal Iain wrote:Besides, people are making generalisations about drunks now. The angry, wife-beating drunk is only one of a myriad of potential drunks a man can be.

Irony?

If you mean that I was making generalisations about pot-heads, it's not ironic becase I didn't deny that I was. If anything I encourage generalisations when it comes to things I don't like because it provides an easier target for my disdain.

Fair enough?

In my mind there are two types of cannabis users:

- The type who be stoned 24/7, not get a job etc... These are the type of people who promote a negative stereotype, just like people who drink too heavily will give people who like to get pissed on occasion and have a drink when watching tv or something a bad 'name'.

- Then there's the type who appreciate cannabis for what it is, don't take it for granted and don't just get absolutely 'mashed' for the sake of it. These type of people are the ones who would most likely fall far, far away from most peoples generalisations and are totally undeserving of them.

Metal Iain wrote:If it was George Michael then it doesn't count because he takes it up the chuff and has no authority to speak on marital matters.

That may be true, but he's had more women than you.

amazing

Metal Iain wrote:There was really no need to ban it completely. It's just not the way things like this should be handled. The better way would have been to continue what they were doing before and let the proprietor of a bar or pub decide whether or not to allow smoking on the premises. I remember people basically suggesting that you should have the right to drink in a smoke-free environment. I think that's total bollocks. You could say you also have the right to enjoy your pint whilst not getting annoyed by a drunk at the bar too.

I totally disagree. Being annoyed by someone has no clear detrimental impact on health. Passive smoking patently does, and you couldn't even escape it unless you totally left the venue and its atmosphere.

If it was down to landlords to choose, most would OBVIOUSLY not ban it. Those in favour of the ban tended to either tolerate it or not go to such places in the first place (so they wouldn't be losing existing custom), whereas those against it were a clear chunk of regular pub-goers.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that one doesn't have a right to not passively inhale someone else's carcinogenic fumes in a public place.