squirrelgrease said:

[img:$uid]http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n276/squirrelgrease/Temporary-5/ecstasy-pill.jpg[/img:$uid]

I wonder what the 'love symbol' pills name is ..

Does anyone have any idea?

eighteenandover said:

squirrelgrease said:

[img:$uid]http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n276/squirrelgrease/ecstasy-pills.jpg[/img:$uid]

I wonder what the 'love symbol' pills name is ..

Does anyone have any idea?

purplemookiebut said:

good to see a few ppl brought up boozre and cancer sticks. i will never understand why they are legal when weed isn't. booze has killed so many ppl fucking up their livers and such and drunk driving. all the ppl who have died from smoking cigs. i don't understand why that shit is legal!!!

weed is harmless when compared booze! no hangover. i've driven home while coming off on pot. your even more alert then when sober. i would never think of driving drunk. but then again i barely ever drink anyway!

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

Mindflux said:

purplemookiebut said:

so now annastesia is slang for ecstasy too as is squirrelmeat?

No, Annastesia actually means "re-birth" or "resurrection".

And the song contains more lyrics than just the word Annastesia

Consider the lyrics - even just the opening few lines;

"Between white and black,

Night and day,

Black night seemed like the only way,

So I danced

Music late, nothing great,

No way to differentiate,

I took a chance

Gregory looks just like a ghost

And then a beautiful girl the most,

Wets her lips to say,

"We could love for a little while,

If you could just learn to smile"

When you take all those words and then apply the evidence that's already been written (about Prince getting all lovey dovey with a woman, but also having a scary experience, it is clear this song is about that drug experience.

He then has an epiphany where he realises that God is the important thing in his life and, well, the rest is history.

It is CRYSTAL clear!

or could Annastesia just stand for anaesthesia....

jimino1 said:

purplemookiebut said:

good to see a few ppl brought up boozre and cancer sticks. i will never understand why they are legal when weed isn't. booze has killed so many ppl fucking up their livers and such and drunk driving. all the ppl who have died from smoking cigs. i don't understand why that shit is legal!!!

weed is harmless when compared booze! no hangover. i've driven home while coming off on pot. your even more alert then when sober. i would never think of driving drunk. but then again i barely ever drink anyway!

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

I've never touched weed but it seems to make my friends really lazy, lackadaisical and mellower. I don't think it would be as deadly as cigarettes given all the extra chemicals placed into cigarettes these days but I don't know. The way i see it, life is competitive and hard out here, there is no time to be avoiding all that with drugs, which is a big reason a lot of people do them. Some things you just should face head on, and we have to anyway eventually. It's a nasty, mean world out there, why give up clarity?

jimino1 said:

purplemookiebut said:

good to see a few ppl brought up boozre and cancer sticks. i will never understand why they are legal when weed isn't. booze has killed so many ppl fucking up their livers and such and drunk driving. all the ppl who have died from smoking cigs. i don't understand why that shit is legal!!!

weed is harmless when compared booze! no hangover. i've driven home while coming off on pot. your even more alert then when sober. i would never think of driving drunk. but then again i barely ever drink anyway!

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

its not really that i mean weed should be legal. its the fact i don't understand that booze and cigs are. just as bad if not worse. and all the stink of if weed should be or not.

purplemookiebut said:

jimino1 said:

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

its not really that i mean weed should be legal. its the fact i don't understand that booze and cigs are. just as bad if not worse. and all the stink of if weed should be or not.

Chemicals & Drugs = that's for assholes

jimino1 said:

purplemookiebut said:

good to see a few ppl brought up boozre and cancer sticks. i will never understand why they are legal when weed isn't. booze has killed so many ppl fucking up their livers and such and drunk driving. all the ppl who have died from smoking cigs. i don't understand why that shit is legal!!!

weed is harmless when compared booze! no hangover. i've driven home while coming off on pot. your even more alert then when sober. i would never think of driving drunk. but then again i barely ever drink anyway!

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

That's a fairly naive post and is typical of coming from someone with no experience and from someone who has done no reasearch and is therefore making a lot of assumptions. Just for starters, studies have shown that people driving under the influence of marijuana actually have FEWER accidents than those under the influence of alcohol. And, it may sound laughable, but it was precisely because those that were stoned drove more slowly and with more care. Those that were drunk were more agressive and believed they were able to do things better, even though they were clearly intoxicated.

Weed IS freely available. Just because its illegal doesn't mean its hard to get! ANYONE who wants marijuana can get it - prohibition does NOT work.

Marijuana has many health BENEFITS and is the ONLY drug that you can't overdose on.

You can't apply generalisations about how people will react - its all down to the individual. There are good people out there, there are bad people, there are lazy people, there are productive people. I've smoked weed for 20+ years - I run my own company and record label, produce music, play gigs, live a full life, don't have any health (mental of physical) issues......but that's just ME! Some people it will be a problem for, but that depends on who they are and what their motiviations are. If you live in poverty and are taking a drug to alleviate the problems associated with that, don't expect, necessarily a positive outcome (although, that's not necessarily true).

Its exactly the same as with alcohol - MOST people can drink alcohol and have no problems with it at all (ie - they don't do it to excess, don't become violent etc etc). SOME people drink alcohol and become alcoholics, or become violent etc etc

The point is people should have the FREEDOM to do as they choose and we should only deal with something if it becomes a problem and they start affecting others around them in a negative way. You know, we let people drive cars (which also kill a lot of people), but we deal with someone once they have crossed the line and have done something dangerous. With drugs however, the line seems to be we won't (supposedly) let anyone do it because they MIGHT have a problem. (that is oversimplifying it and, actually, isn't the real reason that governments are anti-drugs, but that's a whole other story).

[Edited 2/7/11 4:26am]

Schibidi said:

Mindflux said:

No, Annastesia actually means "re-birth" or "resurrection".

And the song contains more lyrics than just the word Annastesia

Consider the lyrics - even just the opening few lines;

"Between white and black,

Night and day,

Black night seemed like the only way,

So I danced

Music late, nothing great,

No way to differentiate,

I took a chance

Gregory looks just like a ghost

And then a beautiful girl the most,

Wets her lips to say,

"We could love for a little while,

If you could just learn to smile"

When you take all those words and then apply the evidence that's already been written (about Prince getting all lovey dovey with a woman, but also having a scary experience, it is clear this song is about that drug experience.

He then has an epiphany where he realises that God is the important thing in his life and, well, the rest is history.

It is CRYSTAL clear!

or could Annastesia just stand for anaesthesia....

I had mentioned that in another thread and certainly the possibility exists. However, ecstasy doesn't cause anaesthesia and nor does anaesthesia "liberate" the mind, it numbs it! However, a libertaion of the mind is the result of a "re-birth" or epiphany, so I think the more literal meaning of Annastesia is more applicable here. However, with Prince there is usually more than one apparent meaning, so...........

Mindflux said:

jimino1 said:

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

Marijuana has many health BENEFITS and is the ONLY drug that you can't overdose on.

[Edited 2/7/11 4:26am]

Probably can't overdose on the stuff but the potheads I talk to refuse to believe it when i tell them that Bruce Lee's own doctor said that he died because of a reaction to eating cannabis leaves. The story goes that since Bruce's wife and children would be needing insurance money, they couldn't put down that Bruce died that way so they said he died after an allergic reaction to a equagesic tablet. Bruce ate the stuff, ironically, because he didn't want to effect his lungs because he was an athlete. As I said before, the stuff is a double edged sword under any circumstance, prescription or other use.

mozfonky said:

jimino1 said:

While I don't totallly disagree - alcohol and cigarettes no doubt do terrible damage - but if weed was freely available would there not be similar problems - health wise? driving under the influence of weed surely would be as bad as alcohol.... does weed cause cancer or other such problems if taken on a daily basis for 5-20 years?

I'm not convinced weed being freely available would make life any better...I do however think that alcohol should be 'less' alcoholic ie.lower percentages...but there again it would just be 'bootlegged' (excuse the pun/black album LOL)

I also agree that cigarettes shouldn't be available as they are - it is proven that they cause death - and huge huge debt medical-wise for any given peaple and governments.....

but I don't think weed would be any better...a stoner generation might be good for fast food outlets when we get the munchies...but other than that I can only see it being just as destructive to society...maybe moreso.....eg. more weed = less likely to care about mundane job LOL?

I guess, it comes down to individual choice and self responsibilty....doesn't matter if its alcohol/drugs or whatever - its up to the individual to be responsible....and therein lies the problem...there are so many out there these days that really don't give a flying f''k...and that would be a real problem...not the drugs or the alcohol ...its the top 2 inches that cause the problems most of the time...and as the governments around the world are all working on how to control us all and dumb us down so that certain groups will profit off it...there will always be an issue like this...freedom vs responsibilty..they can co-exist...but will they ever?

[Edited 2/6/11 2:14am]

reason a lot of people do them. Some things you just should face head on, and we have to anyway eventually. It's a nasty, mean wo

I've never touched weed but it seems to make my friends really lazy, lackadaisical and mellower. I don't think it would be as deadly as cigarettes given all the extra chemicals placed into cigarettes these days but I don't know. The way i see it, life is competitive and hard out here, there is no time to be avoiding all that with drugs, which is a big rld out there, why give up clarity?

Gosh, i hate to reveal all I know about cannibis... Like I said before someone in my family is a big time supporter of medical marijuana... has researched and talks about it to AD NAUSEAUM.

Your friends who seem lazy and more mellow probably ingested Indinca (sp?) weed as oppposed to to other type with is Sativa. Indinca is more of a stoner type of weed, very analgesic, and therefore will make you sleepy. Sativa is more of a cerebral high... you are much more focused.. to the point that you are too focused. You will notice things that you walk past everyday. You WILL drive more carefully because you are paranoid .... not just to the police etc for speeding... but you will become so much more aware of just how fast you are going, you dangerous it would be to get into an accident at that high rate of speed, and just how awful it would be for other drivers families if you were to get in a car accident. So you don't want ANY OF THAT on your concience... so you drive EXTRA careful, and extra slow.

Drunk drivers aren 't aware of how fast they are going, if they did... they just don't give a damn. They may even think "Those other drivers should have stayed out of their way."

Just like beer gives you a different buzz than wine, and different than grain based liqours... different types of weed will also give you a different buzz.

<------ My family member would be so proud to realize that all these things he says to me are actually sinking in.

mozfonky said:

Mindflux said:

Marijuana has many health BENEFITS and is the ONLY drug that you can't overdose on.

[Edited 2/7/11 4:26am]

Probably can't overdose on the stuff but the potheads I talk to refuse to believe it when i tell them that Bruce Lee's own doctor said that he died because of a reaction to eating cannabis leaves. The story goes that since Bruce's wife and children would be needing insurance money, they couldn't put down that Bruce died that way so they said he died after an allergic reaction to a equagesic tablet. Bruce ate the stuff, ironically, because he didn't want to effect his lungs because he was an athlete. As I said before, the stuff is a double edged sword under any circumstance, prescription or other use.

Firstly, that story doesn't disprove the fact that cannabis has many, proven medical benefits.

Secondly, most people have a hard time believing that story - simply because it would be one of those one in a million cases where there is a suspected link between an allergic reaction to cannabis and the death of the vicitim. There have been no PROVEN links, only the very rare speculation. You are talking about the rumoured view of one individual, who had no medical proof, just a theory. Lee actually died of a cerebral endema which was triggered by something and cannabis just happens to be ONE of the substances they found - nobody disputes that cannabis was found in his blood, but it was a "trace" amount and the coroner said that it would have had no more impact "than if Bruce had drunk a cup of tea". The coroner has dismissed any link between cannabis and his death. His family did not have to lie to their insurers, because the official inquest itself put the cause of death down to an allergic reaction to a painkiller he took. (A painkiller which, by the way, was banned here in the UK because of its high propensity for toxicity).

There are some people that would love to prove that cannabis is a danger, because it fuels the anti-drug rhetoric. But the fact remains, it is one of the safest subtances a person can choose to indulge in. Millions of people use it safely with no physical problems associated with it - and if there is the extremely rare but unfortunate reaction, that doesn't set a precedent for the highly normal experience that the absolute majority have.

Mindflux said:

mozfonky said:

Probably can't overdose on the stuff but the potheads I talk to refuse to believe it when i tell them that Bruce Lee's own doctor said that he died because of a reaction to eating cannabis leaves. The story goes that since Bruce's wife and children would be needing insurance money, they couldn't put down that Bruce died that way so they said he died after an allergic reaction to a equagesic tablet. Bruce ate the stuff, ironically, because he didn't want to effect his lungs because he was an athlete. As I said before, the stuff is a double edged sword under any circumstance, prescription or other use.

Firstly, that story doesn't disprove the fact that cannabis has many, proven medical benefits.

Secondly, most people have a hard time believing that story - simply because it would be one of those one in a million cases where there is a suspected link between an allergic reaction to cannabis and the death of the vicitim. There have been no PROVEN links, only the very rare speculation. You are talking about the rumoured view of one individual, who had no medical proof, just a theory. Lee actually died of a cerebral endema which was triggered by something and cannabis just happens to be ONE of the substances they found - nobody disputes that cannabis was found in his blood, but it was a "trace" amount and the coroner said that it would have had no more impact "than if Bruce had drunk a cup of tea". The coroner has dismissed any link between cannabis and his death. His family did not have to lie to their insurers, because the official inquest itself put the cause of death down to an allergic reaction to a painkiller he took. (A painkiller which, by the way, was banned here in the UK because of its high propensity for toxicity).

There are some people that would love to prove that cannabis is a danger, because it fuels the anti-drug rhetoric. But the fact remains, it is one of the safest subtances a person can choose to indulge in. Millions of people use it safely with no physical problems associated with it - and if there is the extremely rare but unfortunate reaction, that doesn't set a precedent for the highly normal experience that the absolute majority have.

In the book Fighting Spirit, there are interviews with Bruce's own doctor, it is his belief that the cannabis killed him and it is his belief that they did fudge the results to recieve insurance. Bruce was also sternly warned after passing out in a bathroom and being rushed to a hospital that if he ate the leaves again he could die, but then as now, you can't keep an addict down. there is a place in nepal where people die from eating the leaves in the same fashion, that is why they warned him. Now, there was and is mystery about Bruce's death, equagesic would have have been a fluke way to go too, then we have the theories that he was murdered and on and on. But my point is, every addiction can be toxic. And yes, in this mess of a world we are all junkies to something, power, pussy, money, crack, alcohol, lest we try to put ourselves above each other.

mozfonky said:

Mindflux said:

Firstly, that story doesn't disprove the fact that cannabis has many, proven medical benefits.

Secondly, most people have a hard time believing that story - simply because it would be one of those one in a million cases where there is a suspected link between an allergic reaction to cannabis and the death of the vicitim. There have been no PROVEN links, only the very rare speculation. You are talking about the rumoured view of one individual, who had no medical proof, just a theory. Lee actually died of a cerebral endema which was triggered by something and cannabis just happens to be ONE of the substances they found - nobody disputes that cannabis was found in his blood, but it was a "trace" amount and the coroner said that it would have had no more impact "than if Bruce had drunk a cup of tea". The coroner has dismissed any link between cannabis and his death. His family did not have to lie to their insurers, because the official inquest itself put the cause of death down to an allergic reaction to a painkiller he took. (A painkiller which, by the way, was banned here in the UK because of its high propensity for toxicity).

There are some people that would love to prove that cannabis is a danger, because it fuels the anti-drug rhetoric. But the fact remains, it is one of the safest subtances a person can choose to indulge in. Millions of people use it safely with no physical problems associated with it - and if there is the extremely rare but unfortunate reaction, that doesn't set a precedent for the highly normal experience that the absolute majority have.

In the book Fighting Spirit, there are interviews with Bruce's own doctor, it is his belief that the cannabis killed him and it is his belief that they did fudge the results to recieve insurance. Bruce was also sternly warned after passing out in a bathroom and being rushed to a hospital that if he ate the leaves again he could die, but then as now, you can't keep an addict down. there is a place in nepal where people die from eating the leaves in the same fashion, that is why they warned him. Now, there was and is mystery about Bruce's death, equagesic would have have been a fluke way to go too, then we have the theories that he was murdered and on and on. But my point is, every addiction can be toxic. And yes, in this mess of a world we are all junkies to something, power, pussy, money, crack, alcohol, lest we try to put ourselves above each other.

he died cause of the curse! i bet that weed was posioned!