Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > The Seed Discussion Forum
I was going to write Dear Greg, but even titles seem it be m
marshall:
Napolean, from your post we might conclude that cigarettes lead to acid....acid leads to pot..pot to cocaine...to...
In my own case, I started with sips of liquor and beer as a kid. Mom and dad ocassionally let me have tiny amounts of alcohol from the time I was 8 or 9. Never got drunk but it removed most of the mystique of alcohol from my mind. I think that's one reason it's never held sway to any extent over me. I can have a beer or glass of wine without feeling the need to get drunk. I smoked pot over a year before I ever touched cigarettes...so pot leads to tobacco use too, I suppose.
imo, some of the 'this leads to that' gateway idea comes from the fact that our government and society lumps all 'illegal' drugs together to an extent. If they make cigarettes illegal, you'll likely start finding a much higher correlation between teens trying illegal cigarettes and use of other illegal drugs. If caffeine were made illegal, then you'd have people asserting that drinking coffee leads to cocaine with more people actually using both. As it stands, many people draw a line between legal and illegal drugs as if this were a moral distinction. People drink and smoke that wouldn't consider smoking pot or other drugs because those are illegal.
Interesting too that in countries where marijuana use is legal, the citizens use less than they do in countries where it's illegal.
GregFL:
--- Quote ---On 2005-09-29 19:28:00, Anonymous wrote:
"ask any heroin addict what the first illegal drug used was; pot doesn't cause anyone to stick a needle in their arm, but here's something to put your investigative skills at, how many heroin addicts wouldn't have been heroin addicts without pot
i'll give you a hint not many"
--- End quote ---
Most heroin addicts also tried cheerios before Heroin. Therefore...How many heroin addicts wouldn't have been heroin addicts without cheerios?
I'll give you a clue...because you haven't one.
:wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid: :wstupid:
Jeeuusus, the Gateway theory in 2005.
Hey anon, tell us a story about the Art institute and their accreditation to award honorific doctorate degrees.
I love fiction!
:grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:
Anonymous:
greg i dont think anyone remembers the details. i rember seeing something (1 am not any one of the anons from before) but dont remember the school.
but i also remember it being stated that it was honorary. so its not like its from a diploma factory. it already was just granted for whatever the reason was. it was never stated around me any other way.
GregFL:
Wrong.
If you are awarded a degree there has to be a reason, even if it is honorary.
The defunct institution allegedly had no authority to award any degree, honorary or otherwise, but instead was accused of SELLING degrees.
So I ask again..someone come up with the actual story surrounding this "doctorate". The first anon just threw some whitewash on it, and then Thom came along and tried to divert from the question.
It remains. Again, what were the circumstances surrounding the awarding of the degree, who did it, and under what authority was the degree awarded, and in what field.
These are not trick questions.
Anonymous:
gerg, i agree there was a reason. i am not saying there is no reason whatsoever. all i am saying was i never heard art or anyone claiming it to be anything other then honorary. i believe it came from a mainstream school and this is just memory hear but i recognized the schools name at the time i saw it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version