It's just you.

Pot smokers and stupidity?

There are stupid people everywhere,
Example : we need lables on things like RVs that say cruise control is not an auto pilot because some idiot ( not smoking pot ) decided to put his on cruise control and get up to go make a sandwich.
result: Crash... law suit... new instructions

or the robber (not smoking pot) writes a hold up note on the back of his own personal check

or the robber that robbed a store wearing his work uniform and hard hat with the company name on the hat and his name on his shirt.

I could go on for days

stupid people are everywhere,that some smoke pot just shows how prevalent pot smoking is.

you sound like the expert that never smoked it and thinks it is a gateway drug to worse things.

We need labels like " don't use this in the shower" on blow dryers for idiots that can't think for themselves and beleive the crap they read without researching it.

Do you think Busch caused hurricane katrina also?

Wyerleader

oh I'm 49,I don't smoke pot but used to and know plenty of people that do and guess what ,several own VERY successfull businesses


sorry about the rant I just love an expert that reads and spews

Well said Wyer. It is good to hear from someone that has actually smoked it in the past especially as pretty much all the people here despite being either for or against its legalization have never actually tried it.

Some have said they've never tried it, but many haven't mentioned one way or the other. As assumption of "pretty much all" seems unjustified.

Agreed. For istance, nobody on here knows whether or not I'm a pothead....

..but we can infer

Oh, you mean ASSume? Yeah, you could but it wouldn't really mean much, would it?

Inference and assumption are not the same thing.

Admittedly, they are related. You are assuming that the logical statements being inferred from are true. However, the inference itself is the act of deriving the logical conclusion(s) of the statements. I believe Josh was using the correct term in his post. He is making the assumption that scru has been honestly giving his opinions in his posts, and coming to a conclusion based off of that.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument, most likely already in progress.

Hrmm, I'm not certain if Josh's response was directed towards Scru's personal pothead status or the more general usage history of all posters. I took it to refer to my comment about not knowing history based on omission - which may not have been the case

Considering that scru ended his post with an elipsis, and Josh began his post with one, I would myself believe he was referring specifically to scru's comment, on the grounds that Josh's own comment was written in such a way to serve as a natural link to scru's comment.