Who is the Biggest Narc on Here?

[Montegriffo]

We have moderators?

[StCapps]

We have moderators?

We have one less moderator than we used to. When we had more moderators, you bitched to them when clubby would make fun of you, or when threads about the Olympics included Olympic related hockey discussion, for instance. When it comes to narcing people out around here, you are king. When it comes to being a prohibitionist reefer madness type narc who shits on pot smokers, StA is king.

[Montegriffo]

We have moderators?

We have one less moderator than we used to. When we had more moderators, you bitched to them when clubby would make fun of you, or when threads about the Olympics included Olympic related hockey discussion, for instance. When it comes to narcing people out around here, you are king. When it comes to being a prohibitionist reefer madness type narc who shits on pot smokers, StA is king.

Fuck off with your Hockey Wars revisionist bullshit.
There was never any objection to Olympic hockey talk. The objection was to NHL spam drowning out first Olympics threads and ultimately all threads.

[StCapps]

Fuck off with your Hockey Wars revisionist bullshit.
There was never any objection to Olympic hockey talk. The objection was to NHL spam drowning out first Olympics threads and ultimately all threads.

The NHL players going or not going to the Olympics is perfectly on topic, you are just an idiot who was mad we werent talking about the Olympics discussions you wanted to have, and wanted to talk about more interesting Olympics discussions that involved the NHL instead.

You just cant handle the truth of what actually happened is all. Dont act like you werent a tattle tale looking for us to be punished for daring to discuss hockey in threads you liked, and dont act like you didnt whine to get clubby censored for insulting you either. Youre a narc, just admit it.

[Montegriffo]

We all saw what happened.
Your revisionism won't work.

[StCapps]

We all saw what happened.
Your revisionism won't work.

That is what happened. Apparently you know so little about hockey, you didnt realize that NHL players involvement or lack thereof in the Winter Olympics was a huge part of the Olympics discussion, especially to Canadians, and thought it was off-topic, but it wasnt.

Basically you were just mad we werent discussing the olympics discussions you wanted to have and focused on olympics discussions you didnt know enough about to have any input. So you got butthurt about it, got us censored by narcing on us, and we retaliated, the rest is history.

Aint revisionism to point out that is how the whole thing started. We even told you repeatedly the NHL discussion was heavily intertwined with Olympics discussion, and you still demanded we should be censored for posting any NHL related talk in your precious olympics threads, both publicly and privately.

Its revisionism to suggest we went off-topic spamming before you demanded our censorship, we did that in retaliation to calls for censorship, and then doubled down once censored and your incessant whining to moderation and ownership was heeded.

[Ex-California]

A drug that is responsible for 13% of schizophrenic patients is well beyond the danger of bath salts, and that bullshit went straight to schedule 1. Get real, pot head. There are reasons this drug was put on schedule 1.

Stop trying to win arguments by lying to everybody about how bad your degenerate drug abusing is for your health. For fuck sake. Just be honest.

The reasons were bullshit. You assume the reasons were good, because you are a prohibitionist faggot who trusts the government to properly regulate drugs, when they have always done a terrible job of it. One small sample size study from the early 70's is not grounds to make cannabis schedule 1, you'd have to be an absolute moron to suggest well founded science was the reason for the scheduling.

I have not said weed was good for everyone's health, you are arguing against an idiotic strawman, because your argument can't hold up unless you cherry pick the dumbest positions to argue against.

I forget what it was on, but I heard some podcast about how the flawed study from the 70s was pushed by the Nixon adminstration simply to make it easier to arrest more people.

But I've injected too many marijuans so I don't remember which one it was. I want to say it was Bollelli or Cooper

[pineapplemike]

Medical marijuana gets backing from Church of England, FT says
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/medical-mar ... -1.1270555

Even religious bodies are seeing the light when it comes to cannabis. The Church of England will relax a self-imposed ban and consider investments in medical marijuana, the Financial Times reported.

The Church Commissioners for England will still exclude recreational cannabis producers, the FT said, citing Edward Mason, the head of responsible investment at the entity that oversees the church’s 12.6 billion pound (US$16 billion) investment portfolio.

the medicinal benefits of marijuana are the reason to take it off schedule 1

[Speaker to Animals]

You degenerate drug abusers are lucky Trump is too busy appointing neocucks in charge of the DEA. I would be the most dreaded narc in history, hunting you all down and locking you in rehab facilities.

[StCapps]

You degenerate drug abusers are lucky Trump is too busy appointing neocucks in charge of the DEA. I would be the most dreaded narc in history, hunting you all down and locking you in rehab facilities.

The Chicken Man won't save you this time, The Cousins are coming. When Uncle Jack shows up, Gomie won't save you either, and neither will Heisenberg. All the while, a close family member is selling pot right under your nose. In the end, you'll want to go back to tagging trees Prohibition Man.

Or perhaps you'll end up more like this guy:


Wishes he was Hank Schrader, but is actually more like Nelson Van Alden.