Best. Movie. Ever.
what rights do smokers have?
- Thread starter Don Quixote
- Start date
Best. Movie. Ever.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I'd argue that. Bed Time for Bonzo is the best movie ever!
I'd argue that. Bed Time for Bonzo is the best movie ever!
Note to self, do not ask Derp for movie referrals.
You just get more hack ish by the second.
Not in the privacy of your home in Alaska, smoke 'EM if you got 'EM!
A. lol. Tell me, Officer Onceler, since when have laws kept law breakers from breaking laws that they intend to break?
B. There have been many, many, so very many more ad campaigns against the tobacco industry. And honestly, I don't remember the last time I saw an ad against marijuana use.
C. Prove it.
D. There is zero brightness in you.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
I'd argue that. Bed Time for Bonzo is the best movie ever!
Bedtime for Bonzo was only a great movie when I was really stoned.
A. lol. Tell me, Officer Onceler, since when have laws kept law breakers from breaking laws that they intend to break?
B. There have been many, many, so very many more ad campaigns against the tobacco industry. And honestly, I don't remember the last time I saw an ad against marijuana use.
C. Prove it.
D. There is zero brightness in you.
I'd have to start a blog to even begin to show it to you. here -try this as a starter.
Did you know that the movie "Reefer Madness" was produced by a company who wanted to skirt the current rules of movie production?
It wasn't a movie done to actually stop people from using it, they wanted to show a bunch of stuff that normally wouldn't be allowed normally.
Considered THE archetypal sensationalized anti-drug movie, but it's really an exploitation film made to capitalize on the hot taboo subject of marijuana use. Like many exploitation films of the time, "Reefer Madness" tried to make a quick buck off of a forbidden subject while skirting the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. The Code forbade the portrayal of immoral acts like drug use. (The illegal drug traffic must not be portrayed in such a way as to stimulate curiosity concerning the use of, or traffic in, such drugs; nor shall scenes be approved which show the use of illegal drugs, or their effects, in detail.)
The film toured around the country for many years - often being re-edited and re-titled ("Tell Your Children", "Dope Addict", "Doped Youth", "Love Madness", "The Burning Question"). It was re-discovered in the early 1970s by NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and screened again as an example of the government's demonization of marijuana. NORML may have been confused about the film's sponsorship since one of the film's distributors, Dwain Esper, testified to the Arizona Supreme Court that "Reefer Madness" was not a trashy exploitation film but was actually sponsored by the U.S. Government - a convincing lie, but a lie nonetheless.
That being said, the film is still quick enjoyable since it dramatizes the "violent narcotic's ... soul destroying" effects on unwary teens, and their hedonistic exploits enroute to the bottom.
this was from the youtube link I put on that pulled up the video.
It wasn't a movie done to actually stop people from using it, they wanted to show a bunch of stuff that normally wouldn't be allowed normally.
Considered THE archetypal sensationalized anti-drug movie, but it's really an exploitation film made to capitalize on the hot taboo subject of marijuana use. Like many exploitation films of the time, "Reefer Madness" tried to make a quick buck off of a forbidden subject while skirting the Motion Picture Production Code of 1930. The Code forbade the portrayal of immoral acts like drug use. (The illegal drug traffic must not be portrayed in such a way as to stimulate curiosity concerning the use of, or traffic in, such drugs; nor shall scenes be approved which show the use of illegal drugs, or their effects, in detail.)
The film toured around the country for many years - often being re-edited and re-titled ("Tell Your Children", "Dope Addict", "Doped Youth", "Love Madness", "The Burning Question"). It was re-discovered in the early 1970s by NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) and screened again as an example of the government's demonization of marijuana. NORML may have been confused about the film's sponsorship since one of the film's distributors, Dwain Esper, testified to the Arizona Supreme Court that "Reefer Madness" was not a trashy exploitation film but was actually sponsored by the U.S. Government - a convincing lie, but a lie nonetheless.
That being said, the film is still quick enjoyable since it dramatizes the "violent narcotic's ... soul destroying" effects on unwary teens, and their hedonistic exploits enroute to the bottom.
this was from the youtube link I put on that pulled up the video.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Smokers have no rights. They are scum.
As an ex-smoker I should point some of the benefits of smoking at least from a UK viewpoint. Smokers pay around £11 billion in taxes but cost the NHS around £5 billion each year, a net gain to the exchequer of £6 billion. They also die earlier, something that actuaries rely on when working out pensions and health costs.
A. lol. Tell me, Officer Onceler, since when have laws kept law breakers from breaking laws that they intend to break?
B. There have been many, many, so very many more ad campaigns against the tobacco industry. And honestly, I don't remember the last time I saw an ad against marijuana use.
C. Prove it.
D. There is zero brightness in you.
I don't think there could be a better testament to your cluelessness than C.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
typical run away and hide onceler "refutation"
rule number one for oncler - never back up your claim, instead, just insult the other person
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you should smoke 12 packs a day.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
my thoughts:
smokers do not have a right to smoke indoor public establishments because the risk of second hand smoke is too great. that said, the government does not have a right to ban smoking indoors.
smoking outside....i seriously doubt there is any real harm of second hand smoke.
given the above, i admit to a bias. CA has a ban on indoor smoking in public establishments. it is nice to go to any restaurant or bar and not have to deal with smoke.
smokers do not have a right to smoke indoor public establishments because the risk of second hand smoke is too great. that said, the government does not have a right to ban smoking indoors.
smoking outside....i seriously doubt there is any real harm of second hand smoke.
given the above, i admit to a bias. CA has a ban on indoor smoking in public establishments. it is nice to go to any restaurant or bar and not have to deal with smoke.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
You smokers are all parasites!!! 
Yurt, she's asking me to "prove" that the Obama admin has been tough on marijuana.
You've started your own threads about that one. His admin has been the worst in my lifetime on pot.
Incredibly stupid on your part.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
