here is a question, what does religion have against drugs, i say religion because almost all major religions including Islam and Christianity state that its a sin too take anything like drugs (alcohol, tobacco etc) and almost all other religion say this same thing (in one way or another), but why?
what does religion have too fear through drugs, its my body my rules right? lets say that all religions are false and made by man? why would they forbid drugs, what benefits does it have, would it truly corrupt our minds?
wouldn't it make sense too say drugs are ok since god placed EVERYTHING on this earth for our use, so smoking tobacco or other substances (ganja banja) would make sense as yo are only using what god gave you (not mixing backing soda with water boiling it etc).
that is if god was real.....
I'd say that drugs are medicines... they are useful, helpful and healthy for specific purposes. But if they are misused, then they damage the body and the mind.
Religions are institutions that are made to help people live good, healthy lives. So they always discourage self-destructive behaviors. The major religions say that the body is a great boon from the Creator. The bible says it is "The Temple of God", the Buddha said that human bodies are extremely precious, etc. So this temple needs to be taken care of, not used as a party house. This precious resource needs to be used wisely, not wasted.
Say you are an employee, and your boss lends you an expensive vehicle and tells you very specifically what to use it for. If you ignore his instructions and trash the car, you'll be responsible, right? I mean, if it was an accident, it might not be so bad, but if it was done just for some laughs, then you're in DEEP S***, right?
This is the funniest first post I've read in awhile.
| Bannik wrote: |
here is a question, what does religion have against drugs, i say religion because almost all major religions including Islam and Christianity state that its a sin too take anything like drugs (alcohol, tobacco etc) and almost all other religion say this same thing (in one way or another), but why?
what does religion have too fear through drugs, its my body my rules right? lets say that all religions are false and made by man? why would they forbid drugs, what benefits does it have, would it truly corrupt our minds?
wouldn't it make sense too say drugs are ok since god placed EVERYTHING on this earth for our use, so smoking tobacco or other substances (ganja banja) would make sense as yo are only using what god gave you (not mixing backing soda with water boiling it etc).
that is if god was real..... |
So does that mean then it is not against your religion, and Indi is OK with taking drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc? 
I know the Mormons ways a little bit as I shared a home with a family during the late nineties. In addition to what you have mentioned, they also are not allowed to have coffee and chocolate. Reason being from a mental health point of view that these have an effect on a person's central nervous system. In addition it can easily lead to abuse and addiction. | Quote: |
So does that mean then it is not against your religion, and Indi is OK with taking drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc?
I know the Mormons ways a little bit as I shared a home with a family during the late nineties. In addition to what you have mentioned, they also are not allowed to have coffee and chocolate. Reason being from a mental health point of view that these have an effect on a person's central nervous system. In addition it can easily lead to abuse and addiction. |
INDI tells me things and I do them, that is our bond, INDI oh great pie in the sky give me your wisdom, grace yourself in this forum, enlighten me with your mighty rod of knowledge.
but still i don't understand why its banned, sure it damages you etc but inst being fat the same you are damaging yourself by over eating? and inst Wine allowed in Christianity (last i heard it was alcohol)..... | Bannik wrote: |
| Quote: | So does that mean then it is not against your religion, and Indi is OK with taking drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc?
I know the Mormons ways a little bit as I shared a home with a family during the late nineties. In addition to what you have mentioned, they also are not allowed to have coffee and chocolate. Reason being from a mental health point of view that these have an effect on a person's central nervous system. In addition it can easily lead to abuse and addiction. |
INDI tells me things and I do them, that is our bond, INDI oh great pie in the sky give me your wisdom, grace yourself in this forum, enlighten me with your mighty rod of knowledge.
but still i don't understand why its banned, sure it damages you etc but inst being fat the same you are damaging yourself by over eating? and inst Wine allowed in Christianity (last i heard it was alcohol)..... |
Is INDI a relative of THE Indi? 
Totally curious about it, but that is of course going off topic now. You're right, there are so many rules and regulations that are supposed to protect us and not all of them are fair, as obesity is a real problem, a serious problem. Why is there no legislation to deal with all the fast food that is being sold or the contents of Vending Machines. Good point. Also, maybe certain sections of supermarkets, i.e. sweets, pastries etc should be gated, you need a special license to buy products that can potentially lead to obesity. 
Kind of reminds me...
The amount of people who die worldwide annually from terrorist attacks was some surprising number like 68. The number of people who die annually just in the US from heart disease was in the tens of thousands. I think we all know which one gets more funding...
**Disclaimer**
Statistics completely made up. Feel free to research it, I'm sure you will find I'm not far off, and it doesn't detract from the point.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Statistics completely made up. Feel free to research it, I'm sure you will find I'm not far off, and it doesn't detract from the point. |
If you were doing an average of the last 10 years, September 11 alone would have pushed that almost three hundred per year. Seriously, where did you get the idea for this made-up statistic? 
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
Kind of reminds me...
The amount of people who die worldwide annually from terrorist attacks was some surprising number like 68. The number of people who die annually just in the US from heart disease was in the tens of thousands. I think we all know which one gets more funding...
**Disclaimer**
Statistics completely made up. Feel free to research it, I'm sure you will find I'm not far off, and it doesn't detract from the point. |
Heart disease of course. If you measure the stats in terms of medical cost to the Nation - refer Website below for cost of heart disease and the steep line in the graph upwards - by State and collectively:
http://www.chronicdiseaseimpact.com/ebcd.taf?cat=disease&type=heart | Bannik wrote: |
| but still i don't understand why its banned, sure it damages you etc but inst being fat the same you are damaging yourself by over eating? and inst Wine allowed in Christianity (last i heard it was alcohol)..... |
Gluttony is considered sinful in most religions/spiritual traditions etc. Not only is it unhealthy, but also many needy people are starving while gluttons feast.
That being said, most religions have some sort of official gluttony days (feast days etc) and most seem pretty lenient about this particular sin. And what would be a normal meal for some might be considered gluttony for another. The muslim saint Rumi wrote a pretty cool poem about this exact thing, called The Gluttonous Sufi. Read it here if you like.
Personally, I overeat a lot of the time. It is hard because we need food to live. I recognize the problems with overeating and I at least try to share... oink! It is true, there is a double standard, it doesn't make so much sense.
That being said, we need food to live, but most of us need absolutely no alcohol or recreational drugs to live perfectly healthy, balanced lives. Why not cut out what is unnecessary and ultimately harmful?
I don't think one has to be religious at all to see the logic of this... | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| That being said, we need food to live, but most of us need absolutely no alcohol or recreational drugs to live perfectly healthy, balanced lives. Why not cut out what is unnecessary and ultimately harmful? |
Ironically if you replace alcohol/drugs with religion that statement works quite nicely. | peaceupnorth wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | but still i don't understand why its banned, sure it damages you etc but inst being fat the same you are damaging yourself by over eating? and inst Wine allowed in Christianity (last i heard it was alcohol)..... |
Gluttony is considered sinful in most religions/spiritual traditions etc. Not only is it unhealthy, but also many needy people are starving while gluttons feast.
That being said, most religions have some sort of official gluttony days (feast days etc) and most seem pretty lenient about this particular sin. And what would be a normal meal for some might be considered gluttony for another. The muslim saint Rumi wrote a pretty cool poem about this exact thing, called The Gluttonous Sufi. Read it here if you like.
Personally, I overeat a lot of the time. It is hard because we need food to live. I recognize the problems with overeating and I at least try to share... oink! It is true, there is a double standard, it doesn't make so much sense.
That being said, we need food to live, but most of us need absolutely no alcohol or recreational drugs to live perfectly healthy, balanced lives. Why not cut out what is unnecessary and ultimately harmful?
I don't think one has to be religious at all to see the logic of this... |
have you read about gluttony, EVERYONE is basically a sinner, wanting too eat BETTER food is gluttony, wanting too eat before the meal is gluttony (no snacks), eating too eagerly and wildly (excitement) is gluttony.....
its like we are all gluttons, no way around it.... heck the pope is a glutton, i am sure he doesnt eat ready too eat out of the can oatmeal...just, to care of people. To help them to stay away from poison 
| Hogwarts wrote: |
| If you were doing an average of the last 10 years, September 11 alone would have pushed that almost three hundred per year. Seriously, where did you get the idea for this made-up statistic? |
Doesn't matter. Heart disease still kills way more people. The point is still as valid. | deanhills wrote: |
| Heart disease of course. If you measure the stats in terms of medical cost to the Nation - refer Website below for cost of heart disease and the steep line in the graph upwards - by State and collectively: |
That's "medical cost to the nation", not direct funding, which is what I was talking about.If you want the stats on terrorist-caused deaths then the source below may be useful
http://www.wnmeds.ac.nz/academic/dph/research/HIRP/Tobacco/publications/Road%20crashes%20vs%20terrorism%20in%20Inj%20Prev1.pdf
(warning - it is PDF so you need Acrobat or Adobe Reader) Thanks to Bikerman for doing the research that I was too lazy to do myself.
| Quote: |
For the 29 OECD countries there were a total of 33
international terrorism attacks between 1994 and 2003 in
which deaths occurred... When considering all of the 29 OECD countries, the annual
death rate from road injury was approximately 390 times that
from international terrorism (table 1). Out of the 10 countries
suffering fatal international terrorism attacks, the ratio of
annual road injury to international terrorism deaths ranged
from 142 times for the United States, to 55 300 times for
Poland. In 2001, road deaths in the USA were equal to those
from a September 11 type terrorist attack every 25.7 days. For
all of these countries combined, the road mortality burden
was equivalent to the impact of a September 11 attack every
9.1 days. |
*EDIT* The above quote is from the PDF Bikerman provided in the link in his post. *EDIT*
And the appropriate funding is backwards.
| Quote: |
These amendments, totaling nearly $47.6
billion, bring the total fiscal year 2008 GWOT funding request for DOD to
about $189.3 billion. |
The PDF from the GAO regarding funding for the Global War on Terror(GWOT) can be read here.
| Quote: |
Fiscal Year(FY) funding for Highway Safety:
* FY 2009: $235 million
* FY 2008: $225 million
* FY 2007: $220 million
* FY 2006: $217 million
* FY 2005: $164 million |
The highway safety funding chart can be read here.
Direct funding for heart disease is no better.
| Quote: |
| Current funding for heart disease and stroke research is currently about $8 per person in the United States, according to the American Heart Association, an amount the organization claims is inadequate for dealing with the expected increase in heart disease and stroke. |
Especially considering the following... | Quote: |
| Nearly 1 million Americans die each year from heart disease, close to 40 percent of all deaths in the United States. |
Which comes from here.
The made up statistics from my previous post somehow seem generous in comparison.
My point was that there needs to be more funding for things like heart disease(and apparently highway safety... yikes!), but they don't get the sensationalist media coverage that an Arab with a Kalashnikov gets. Yet, they are far more likely to kill you than some mysterious terrorist.
Anyway, this whole thing is way off topic, and I only thought of it on a side not based on deanhills' mention about legislation for obesity. I apologize if I misled anyone with fake stats, and if I dragged the topic to the far ends of nowhereville. While it is true many religions have varied adherence to the idea that drugs and alcohol are "sinful"
It is certainly not across the board. You have extremes (imo) like the mormons who cant drink a pepsi, and many fundy evangelicals who think you will burn in hell for smoking a cigarette with a glass of wine.
The truth of the matter as I see it is too much of anything is not wise or healthy. Judaism does not condemn alcohol or smoking as a doctrine, there are individuals who object to smoking for health reasons mostly. It is not seen as a "sin".
Christianity seems to seek an ideal of purity which is very difficult for most to live up to 24/7. I believe Islam to the best of my knowledge ( which is limited) sees it as a weakness at least.
I believe personally the truth is that the extreme of anything is not good. Drugs that cause damage to life, health, family, safety and are illegal are to be avoided. I deal personally with the results of this in my work and witness the grief it leads to. While saying this I know there are those who would include a marlboro and a budweiser in that category while I wouldnt. Perhaps all of life is subjective.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Anyway, this whole thing is way off topic, and I only thought of it on a side not based on deanhills' mention about legislation for obesity. I apologize if I misled anyone with fake stats, and if I dragged the topic to the far ends of nowhereville. |
No way man, thanks to you and bikerman for showing evidence of how far off track our public consciousness is. I think some people (the powerful, rich, influential ones, unfortunately) just want to fight with each other, and have neat top secret missions, and buy big ridiculous pieces of incredibly destructive technology.
And most folk just go along with it... maybe partly because it is easier to drink yourself senseless (or take drugs, or play Warcraft, or massively overemphasize sex, or food or anything) than to care. I don't like all the things coming from religions, but at least some people are actively trying to preach and live "love your neighbor", "care for and have compassion for everyone", serve the needy and poor, live a clean and healthy life, etc. Heedless hedonism doesn't do much good for anyone.
| BinahZ wrote: |
I believe personally the truth is that the extreme of anything is not good. Drugs that cause damage to life, health, family, safety and are illegal are to be avoided. I deal personally with the results of this in my work and witness the grief it leads to. While saying this I know there are those who would include a marlboro and a budweiser in that category while I wouldnt. Perhaps all of life is subjective.
Cool |
Yeah... you make a good point. My stance is just to boycott smoke and booze entirely because many people cannot have just one smoke or one beer. Abstaining is setting an example of a person who can have fun without those things. But it is important to also be an example of non-judgementalism, and tolerance, as you suggested, binahz. Afterall, respecting others and promoting goodwill is probably much more important than whether somebody has a smoke or a beer or not.drugs are bad for body and for spirit
| el-bac wrote: |
| drugs are bad for body and for spirit |
Except for the healing and spiritual ones of course. | Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
**Disclaimer**
Statistics completely made up. Feel free to research it, I'm sure you will find I'm not far off, and it doesn't detract from the point. |
I'm quite sure that deja vu was intentional on your part. Sorry for spoiling your trolling attempt. | Arnie wrote: |
| I'm quite sure that deja vu was intentional on your part. Sorry for spoiling your trolling attempt. |
So sayeth the pot to the kettle.Don't feel offended son, I wasn't saying you were doing anything bad.
No offense taken. Just living up to my job title as 'professional instigator'. Oh... and if I'm your 'son', be careful, because my dad may be old, but he is a deadly man.
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
| Doesn't matter. Heart disease still kills way more people. The point is still as valid. |
I get what you're saying and it's a good argument, but logically, it is not valid. To make it valid, you would need to prove that even if the funding was spent on heart disease research and instead of terrorism prevention, there would still be few terrorist related deaths and there would be fewer heart disease related deaths. I think everyone will agree that more research in heart disease will lead to fewer heart disease related deaths because the evidence is prevalent by viewing the very successful medical outbreaks over the course of human history...
Now... to terrorism. What if the reason for few terrorism related deaths in the past few years since 9/11 is a direct result of all of the money spent on it? How many people would have died if the money wasn't spent? There may have been millions of lives saved because of the funding which brings the death toll down to a relatively low number which is why you're here arguing that the money should have been spent elsewhere.
Note: Please do not think that I have the alternate viewpoint that I just shared. I do not think that millions of more people would have died without the funding. I am simply sharing an alternate viewpoint that I was thinking about because in order to make your point valid, you must take what I just said into account.The thing is, we can say that X amount of money that we did spend on anti-terrorism 'may have' saved Y amount of lives. But that is a big 'MAYBE'. With heart research, we know for a fact that the money spent would save lives, it's a medical and statistical fact. The same can not be said for anti-terrorism spending. It's all speculation.
Maybe the 6 billion we spent training new spies helped, but I have seen no evidence of that(for example).
I am too drunk now to look anything up(not a cop out... I'd love to, but I am hammered), but I am betting that if you look up stats for large injections of money into cardiovascular research, you would find a correlation between that and a lower death rate for heart problems. And I am also willing to bet that the same can not be said for anti-terror spending.
If I am wrong, and there is a huge possibility that I am, I will concede from this affair.
Jeezus... I am so sorry for my postings this evening...
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: |
The thing is, we can say that X amount of money that we did spend on anti-terrorism 'may have' saved Y amount of lives. But that is a big 'MAYBE'. With heart research, we know for a fact that the money spent would save lives, it's a medical and statistical fact. The same can not be said for anti-terrorism spending. It's all speculation.
Maybe the 6 billion we spent training new spies helped, but I have seen no evidence of that(for example).
I am too drunk now to look anything up(not a cop out... I'd love to, but I am hammered), but I am betting that if you look up stats for large injections of money into cardiovascular research, you would find a correlation between that and a lower death rate for heart problems. And I am also willing to bet that the same can not be said for anti-terror spending.
If I am wrong, and there is a huge possibility that I am, I will concede from this affair.
Jeezus... I am so sorry for my postings this evening... |
I don't want to do the research either because I am confident in my guess that the money spent on heart disease would have saved more lives. I was just showing you another viewpoint that you would have to consider if you were going to try and prove anything.
And if you can still type here then you haven't had enough to drink.... Grab another beer and shot... (well maybe you shouldn't listen to me because I tend to drink way too much and so I probably shouldn't encourage it...) | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Solon_Poledourus wrote: | The thing is, we can say that X amount of money that we did spend on anti-terrorism 'may have' saved Y amount of lives. But that is a big 'MAYBE'. With heart research, we know for a fact that the money spent would save lives, it's a medical and statistical fact. The same can not be said for anti-terrorism spending. It's all speculation.
Maybe the 6 billion we spent training new spies helped, but I have seen no evidence of that(for example).
I am too drunk now to look anything up(not a cop out... I'd love to, but I am hammered), but I am betting that if you look up stats for large injections of money into cardiovascular research, you would find a correlation between that and a lower death rate for heart problems. And I am also willing to bet that the same can not be said for anti-terror spending.
If I am wrong, and there is a huge possibility that I am, I will concede from this affair.
Jeezus... I am so sorry for my postings this evening... |
I don't want to do the research either because I am confident in my guess that the money spent on heart disease would have saved more lives. I was just showing you another viewpoint that you would have to consider if you were going to try and prove anything.
And if you can still type here then you haven't had enough to drink.... Grab another beer and shot... (well maybe you shouldn't listen to me because I tend to drink way too much and so I probably shouldn't encourage it...) |
Perhaps there is a deeper dimension to rebutting terrorism. How can we work out the statistics of those Americans that may have died if the US did not have a strong presence in the Middle East? There is that, and there is also the impact of the strong image of a big country on its Dollar and its economy. If the US should stop being strong in anti-terrorist activities, perhaps there will be much more to contend with than lives lost, such as loss of value of the US dollar, people wondering whether they should do business with the US, etc. Not to mention being unable to sleep peacefully at night when terrorists start operating on US soil. How does one attach dollar tags to that?This thread has branched onto terrorism but I'll talk about the original topic. I don't follow, nor do I particularly care about the rules regarding drugs/alcohol in other religions (mainly Christianity as that's what people usually use to bash all religions). I've heard from some Christians that the Bible says not to drink alcohol, I've heard from others it's okay. Again, I don't care what they think or follow. In my religion, harmful drugs are not allowed. Why? Because they harm you. Also in my religion, too much of anything is wrong, not just drugs - Islam encourages keeping things in moderation. Basically the point is don't do anything to harm yourself (please don't reply with LOL but teh sooiside bommers dey all blow emselfs up dats harming rite? LOl). Why Islam forbids drugs but not other things? Well, I've heard of people overdosing on cocaine, but I've never heard of people overdosing on Coca Cola. There's good Coke and there's bad coke 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| This thread has branched onto terrorism but I'll talk about the original topic. I don't follow, nor do I particularly care about the rules regarding drugs/alcohol in other religions (mainly Christianity as that's what people usually use to bash all religions). I've heard from some Christians that the Bible says not to drink alcohol, I've heard from others it's okay. Again, I don't care what they think or follow. In my religion, harmful drugs are not allowed. Why? Because they harm you. |
But this is a nonsense. Anything in sufficient quantity will harm you. Most prescription drugs can do serious damage if taken wrongly, so are THEY allowed?
I presume your point is that it is sinful for the individual to take a drug that would, probably, do more harm than good? | Bikerman wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | This thread has branched onto terrorism but I'll talk about the original topic. I don't follow, nor do I particularly care about the rules regarding drugs/alcohol in other religions (mainly Christianity as that's what people usually use to bash all religions). I've heard from some Christians that the Bible says not to drink alcohol, I've heard from others it's okay. Again, I don't care what they think or follow. In my religion, harmful drugs are not allowed. Why? Because they harm you. |
But this is a nonsense. Anything in sufficient quantity will harm you. Most prescription drugs can do serious damage if taken wrongly, so are THEY allowed?
I presume your point is that it is sinful for the individual to take a drug that would, probably, do more harm than good? |
Even that point has obvious problems 
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| This thread has branched onto terrorism but I'll talk about the original topic. I don't follow, nor do I particularly care about the rules regarding drugs/alcohol in other religions (mainly Christianity as that's what people usually use to bash all religions). I've heard from some Christians that the Bible says not to drink alcohol, I've heard from others it's okay. Again, I don't care what they think or follow. In my religion, harmful drugs are not allowed. Why? Because they harm you. Also in my religion, too much of anything is wrong, not just drugs - Islam encourages keeping things in moderation. Basically the point is don't do anything to harm yourself (please don't reply with LOL but teh sooiside bommers dey all blow emselfs up dats harming rite? LOl). Why Islam forbids drugs but not other things? Well, I've heard of people overdosing on cocaine, but I've never heard of people overdosing on Coca Cola. There's good Coke and there's bad coke |
I FORGOT about this thread.
anyways you make a good point but no one has ever EVER overdosed on marijuana.....also what i dont understand is that EVERYTHING harms you in a way...even exercising too much is bad for you... | Bannik wrote: |
| HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | This thread has branched onto terrorism but I'll talk about the original topic. I don't follow, nor do I particularly care about the rules regarding drugs/alcohol in other religions (mainly Christianity as that's what people usually use to bash all religions). I've heard from some Christians that the Bible says not to drink alcohol, I've heard from others it's okay. Again, I don't care what they think or follow. In my religion, harmful drugs are not allowed. Why? Because they harm you. Also in my religion, too much of anything is wrong, not just drugs - Islam encourages keeping things in moderation. Basically the point is don't do anything to harm yourself (please don't reply with LOL but teh sooiside bommers dey all blow emselfs up dats harming rite? LOl). Why Islam forbids drugs but not other things? Well, I've heard of people overdosing on cocaine, but I've never heard of people overdosing on Coca Cola. There's good Coke and there's bad coke |
I FORGOT about this thread.
anyways you make a good point but no one has ever EVER overdosed on marijuana.....also what i dont understand is that EVERYTHING harms you in a way...even exercising too much is bad for you... |
Yeah, and no one has overdosed on cigarettes either - does that mean they're not unhealthy either? Anything in vast quantities is unhealthy (exercising as you said, for example). As I said...moderation, moderation, moderation. I don't mean to offend you in any way, but I read from other posts of yours that you use marijuana...could that have anything to do with you defending it? If you were taking hashish or something you might have ended up defending that. Again, no offense. | HalfBloodPrince wrote: |
| Bannik wrote: | | HalfBloodPrince wrote: | | This thread has branched onto terrorism but I'll talk about the original topic. I don't follow, nor do I particularly care about the rules regarding drugs/alcohol in other religions (mainly Christianity as that's what people usually use to bash all religions). I've heard from some Christians that the Bible says not to drink alcohol, I've heard from others it's okay. Again, I don't care what they think or follow. In my religion, harmful drugs are not allowed. Why? Because they harm you. Also in my religion, too much of anything is wrong, not just drugs - Islam encourages keeping things in moderation. Basically the point is don't do anything to harm yourself (please don't reply with LOL but teh sooiside bommers dey all blow emselfs up dats harming rite? LOl). Why Islam forbids drugs but not other things? Well, I've heard of people overdosing on cocaine, but I've never heard of people overdosing on Coca Cola. There's good Coke and there's bad coke |
I FORGOT about this thread.
anyways you make a good point but no one has ever EVER overdosed on marijuana.....also what i dont understand is that EVERYTHING harms you in a way...even exercising too much is bad for you... |
Yeah, and no one has overdosed on cigarettes either - does that mean they're not unhealthy either? Anything in vast quantities is unhealthy (exercising as you said, for example). As I said...moderation, moderation, moderation. I don't mean to offend you in any way, but I read from other posts of yours that you use marijuana...could that have anything to do with you defending it? If you were taking hashish or something you might have ended up defending that. Again, no offense. |
touche you stalker
ps - no offense taken i am proud of my mary jane love.... and yes i am defending it - also hashish is the same thing as marijuana just processed differently.
and i don't actually have any reply you sorta beat me so you win this time half blood prince but one day ONE DAY i promise your time will come....
