chapter one overview of marijuana and hemp

[USMC the Almighty]

What does this have to do w/ the current topic?

 

[Rokerijdude11]

i dont know what happened there? sorry

 

[Rokerijdude11]

UMMMMMMMM excuse me? where Did "I" say it was harmeless there squiggy?
i posted articles from jacks book? so where did I say it was "HARMLESS" or where did JACK say it?



i read the whole thread 4 times i NEVER SAID it was harmless? i posted information from jacks Book

so once again you CLAIM to have proven something wrong when in reality you are WRONG






you have been outed again and yet you squirm away like a worm on a hook

you as usual are WRONG AGAIN

bumpity

 

[palerider]

BTW all of what i posted came from the book I NEVER ONCE SAID IT WAS HARMLESS AS YOU ARE PROJECTING

you sir are a LIAR plain and simple

From your posts:

"More than 100 years have passed since the 1894 British Raj commission study of hashish smokers in India reported cannabis use was harmless and even helpful. Numerous studies since have all agreed: The most prominent being Siler, LaGuardia, Nixon's Shafer Commission, Canada's LeDain Commission, and the California Research Advisory Commission."

When U.S. government sponsored research prior to 1976 indicated that cannabis was harmless or beneficial, the methodology of how each study was done was always presented in detail in the reports; e.g., read The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana (1976) and you will see exactly what the methodology of each medical study was.


Why do you keep doing this to yourself roker? There is a liar here and now twice I have brought your own posts forward to prove that it is you. You keep bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

From your posts:

"More than 100 years have passed since the 1894 British Raj commission study of hashish smokers in India reported cannabis use was harmless and even helpful. Numerous studies since have all agreed: The most prominent being Siler, LaGuardia, Nixon's Shafer Commission, Canada's LeDain Commission, and the California Research Advisory Commission."

When U.S. government sponsored research prior to 1976 indicated that cannabis was harmless or beneficial, the methodology of how each study was done was always presented in detail in the reports; e.g., read The Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana (1976) and you will see exactly what the methodology of each medical study was.


Why do you keep doing this to yourself roker? There is a liar here and now twice I have brought your own posts forward to prove that it is you. You keep bringing a knife to an intellectual gunfight.

what part of that was posted from jacks book dont you understand?


I didnt say that The BOOK did get past it


and it dosent say it is harmless NOW does it? no it clearly says that a study in 1894 concluded it was harmless.....................and then states that since then severl reports have agreed...............


then it goes on to say that the US Governement said it was harmless in 1976 clearly not 100 years ago and clearly not ROKER saying it

and so then are these the points you clain to have proven wrong?

these two here this is your argument ? where you mopped the floor with me?

 

[palerider]

what part of that was posted from jacks book dont you understand?

Your intelligence in serious question here roker. Shucking and jiving, dodging and weaving. Just like you did the last time that I proved decicively that you were a liar.

You said:

"but I did not say it was harmless and then you joined in ....."


Clearly you posted information that claimed that pot was harmless. Unless you are now claiming that you didn't really believe the information when you posted it.

Then you started the shuck and jive starting to claim that you didn't say it, jack said it and it just found its way into your post but you really didn't mean it:

"i read the whole thread 4 times i NEVER SAID it was harmless? i posted information from jacks Book "

As if posting information from a source that says a particular thing does not constitute "you" saying the thing. You are pathetic roker. You have already been proven to be a liar once, and everyone knows it, and here it has happened again and you still aren't man enough to admit that you have been caught. What is wrong with you?

When you cut and paste information to a thread in an attempt to prove whatever point you are trying to make, you have said whatever you have posted in an attempt to prove your point.

Now that you are caught, you are making the claim that unless the words are an original thought of yours, you didn't say them? That is easy since most of your arguments are in tje form of cut and paste, it is highly doubtful that you have ever had an orginal thought worth writing here.

You are pathetic.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

MY MY MY


How angry and pissy Mr rider gets when he is wrong. which you are ......end of story . you never proved a thing....the readers can read the information you posted for themselves it is inconclusive there was no decisive "victory" on your part? only a percieved victory

and at this point its quite clear you have been palyed out as you continue to fail to move on in the subject. we can only ascertain it is due to the fact that you are Unable to continue as you have been exposed




and for the 50th time


EXACTLY what points have you so decisevly proven wrong..............not a blanket or general statemen CAN YOU PRODUCE THE EXACT POINTS YOUVE PROVEN WRONG?

many of us have told you you could simply end this by providing this information..........at this point buddy all the shuck and jive is on your part..............

look hes taken to using crayons in his posts!!!!!!!

If they harken you back to your crayon days, then by all means use them. But then dopers really don't ever leave their crayond days behind...do they?

I guess not huh doper?


Finito

see you in chapter 4 if your up to it




ooooowwwweeeeee he called me pathetic ..im telling


again in case you had fogotten this post was place several pages after you percieved win

 

[Rokerijdude11]

yes this was said some 12 pages later after nothing but continual insults and misdirects which i can also prove by posting further comments

I think that although Roker is stubborn and slightly provocative in this issue, Palerider just talks absoloute arse that he has just looked up on some government website in the last five minutes.

Palerider just attacks the way people debate this issue, and doesn't address the fact that Roker is actually defeating him in it at every turn of this discussion.

apparently your memory of how it went is wrong

so farewell till chapter 4 finito you have been exposed

here readers start at page 3 work till page 16 you will see for yourselves

end game

check and mate

this is the LAST post Ill make in chapter one we have skipped to chapter 4 that is if your Up to it

 

[palerider]

Sorry roker, You lost and either aren't man enough to admit it or aren't smart enough to realize it. I will leave it to you to say which. You have a nice day now.