Sheikah

What does this have to do anything? But in answer to your question, not nearly as many people as animals.

Having played a fair bit with Marth/against Marth (friend), my opinion of it has gone down a bit. It's surprisingly quite easy to dodge his final smash. You can roll out the way as he goes past to avoid all damage, and a fair few times he's gone right off the edge. Also, as long as you jump you can try hit Marth on the way down to know his FS ball off him. But if you do get a hit, it is ridiculously good.

No one in this topic has studied anything about drugs, we just have a few people who are expressing their views more strongly because they believe having tried drugs means they a) know their effects on the everyone who takes them, b) know exactly the consequences. Therefore according to you, all opinions are invalid. Frankly this is ridiculous, and to be honest I was never aiming to talk about other drugs to begin with, rather smoking (as the topic implies).

Actually, even scientists wouldn't know what drug taking was like, presuming they hadn't taken drugs. They publish their information from studies in journals, for all to see.

Do you have any scientific proof, or are you going to keep saying that just for argument's sake? Given that you tried to tell me about alcohol not being beneficial, I would say my post was very relevant indeed. Plus it was fun watching you fall flat on your arse. Drugs are obviously used not for the sake of damaging someone's health, but that is their unfortunate side effect. The statement "you can't talk about drugs because you haven't taken them" seems an all-too-convenient line to simply reject anyone elses opinion of them, despite plenty of factual evidence being available to anyone, drug user or not.

I think you have taken that metaphor too literally. Right, I've been waiting for someone to post some science, now to get to work. Alcohol in reasonable quantities is actually beneficial. There is no evidence to suggest that in reasonable quantities alcohol damages your health. In fact, evidence argues the opposite. Doll et. al (2005) showed that mortality was higher in non-drinkers in a large sample of doctors who did and did not and did drink. Studies also show that alcohol reduces the risk of heart attack in woman with the consumption of small amounts of alcohol. It's also been shown that in studies involving drinkers and non-drinkers, people were less likely to develop Alzheimer's if they drunk. Before suggesting that 'any amount of alcohol is bad for you', you should have researched beforehand. Your body =/= everyone elses.

Facts of drugs does not = what happened to them, facts of drugs are based on reading medical journals, possibly being a scientist who studies in that area. Then that doesn't contest my point, about non drug users in debates about drugs. Research on drugs could be done by reading medical journals or (something I disagree with) animal testing. Not from drug users giving their opinions.

Do they employ ex-drug users to classify drugs? No. That point still pretty much stands. And to be honest, if I was a drug user trying to get over drugs I would probably feel better if given help or encouragement from someone who has gone through the same experience. But that doesn't mean a councellor could jump into a hardcore debate on the facts of drugs. Wrong, wrong, utterly wrong. You clearly know little or nothing about the effects of smoking. In any smoker the lining of the lungs is continuously irreversibly broken down, just one of the things that smoking causes. I have studied this at uni, I'm pretty sure my lecturers know what they are talking about. You on the other hand just seem to be saying things that you believe without any real factual background. No, if you drink drive you will be arrested. That's like choosing not to sell knives because they could be used to stab. The point is that drinking and buying knives for kitchen use are responsible and safe, while smoking is never healthy.

Alcohol is fine in reasonable amounts, smoking is never is. This closes this line of argument. And I mean for Christ's sake, it's evident that this argument is full of smokers or ex-drug users, frankly I wouldn't expect any less than a full-out argument from you all. It's like debating with a school of fish that water should be banned.

Yes, let's ban alcohol because some people don't consume it in reasonable amounts, or are stupid enough to drive afterwards. Your posts are full of thought, I can't find a single flaw! This is quality stuff. Are you suggesting we replace the people responsible for the classification of drugs with drug users, as they are more knowledgeable in the field of drugs? Some people on this forum talk such nonsense, it's a good read.

For christ's sake. Do you ever stop talking bollocks? It seems pretty obvious to me that someone smoking weed would think it was perfectly fine, while someone who never smoked it may not think so. Not getting into that debate though, just pointing out that having experience with a drug does not necessarily equip someone with the facts for a debate. Even if a drug did something to them, to form a statement on a drug solely from their experience is again a unfair bias. So nerr. Anyone who holds something different to their beliefs? You do realise that comment was in reply to someone who had no regard of people's health and saw the smoking ban as useless? Then you might want to think again before saying that. I've already discussed what you've said, regarding "people's right's" being taken away. Several substances are banned, yet people do not claim that their rights are being infringed. It just happens that cigarettes are more popular. My view is that smoking will eventually be banned, this is not your view, and I am not saying that your view should be replaced with mine. My view may sound like people will be forced to do something, but it's not as if I'm saying "no, your view on smoking is utterly irrelevant". At the end of the day it is what I think will happen eventually.

Yes weed may, the point is people who were experienced taking them would be biased on any matter regarding the drug they've taken. Unless it wrecked them really bad. If you'd only be prescribed heroin if you're already addicted my point is that the number of people using drugs would be similar, as however people get hooked in the first place would still be there. I just don't think it gives out the right message to give people heroin, you and I won't agree on that but that's just life.

If it's legal only for people addicted then it's still illegal for people who aren't, meaning it would still be popular in your line of argument thirtynine. If anything experience with drugs makes you biased, as I'm sure for instance anyone who smoked weed would support the legalisation (not getting into that debate though).

Drug taking increases because frankly it is addictive and makes people feel good, that's why if it was legal I still think it would be very popular still. Which I don't display. My points have always been that I believe (never said that everyone else should share my view) it would be a good thing for smoking to one day eventually be banned, his view is to state plainly what I am, as if it is written fact.

I don't see it that way, the fact I come on here rarely works both ways. I don't know you, you don't know me. So take your "I'm always right" attitude elsewhere. =D

Exactly, it was a waste of time personally insulting me.

Fair enough, but I still don't care if you call me pompous. But really I don't see how my time here should be any different, I don't make it a habbit to read up on people's personal life anyway.

Christ...need I keep explaining this. YES, the air is filtered, but unless you had a very powerful vacuum above each individual seat, it is inevitable that if someone on a seat near you started smoking that you'd start breathing in some smoke. I really doubt there were any strong vacuum systems then anyway. The actual air pumped back in may have been better for you (as far as pumped air goes), but that doesn't mean direct smoke from those near you wouldn't go into your lungs. You're right, and I'm damn proud of that. You can't pin the proliferation of drugs to the fact heroin was made illegal. I think that drug taking would have increased anyway. Prescribing heroin may well mean people could just sell it, so I don't think the government would want to go down that route.

Then it would seem you're a closed-minded and disgusting person, with no care for others. I'm utterly gobsmacked that you think heroin should be legalised, as well as thinking that it was better for people when people could all smoke on planes (imagine sitting in a room with cigarette smoke circulating the room on a long-distance flight). But what do I care, you're obviously more knowledgable about the effects of drugs, aren't you? I'm sure this knowledge is from your friends or something, not any form of education. Nothing you say can bother me, really. You just seem like someone really messed up to me, only because your views on everything are extreme and you even admitted in another topic that you wanted offend your parents with your choices in life. To be called pompous? I couldn't really care. Right jayseven, I've had a look through your really long post and again you've used a lot of examples that don't seem relevant. Smoking on an aeroplane, despite filtration, would mean that you would be getting smoke in your face. Obviously you would need a constant supply of oxygen and they couldn't just keep pumping out smoke-air, but it seem blatantly obvious that people smoking near to you would be releasing smoke into your direction. Unless there were ultra vacuums attached above each seat, which seems extremely unlikely, smoke would definitely be around you and you'd be breathing in a nasty cocktail of chemicals. Moving on, your examples seem frankly bizarre and unrelated to smoking. Fireworks allowed at one time a year? What does this have to do with smoking? What would the point be in allowing to smoke one time a year? Fireworks are obviously banned most of the year since they can be dangerous, but shouldn't be in the right hands. You can't say the same for smoking, which is always bad for you. By allowing fireworks for a short period of time they reduce the risk. Really my point about asbestos sums up what I'm saying - a banned substance, banned because it was a danger to health (to further compare it, it even causes cancer). Therefore, it isn't anything to do with my opinion that things bad for you get banned. I wasn't even alive when it was banned, so how could I be? Why would my opinion be to do with the government taking action on something? I am confused you ever went down that road. I do not argue as if every smoker is a dick, when I said before "some smokers are selfish beyond belief, etc" I was quoting nightwolf's reply to thirtynine, as clearly thirtynine demonstrated he couldn't give a shit. I realise you like smokers to have a choice, but like I say, it's not a wise choice as it's doing no good for you. It wouldn't be the worst thing if people one day weren't allowed to smoke. Regarding wars, that is a different matter. Wars are fought for an eventual outcome, with Iraq we intended to stop an oppressive regime. There is no good outcome to be had from smoking.

I will kill you, you can't borrow something to someone.

Have a choice to take heroin? Seriously I don't know what you're suggesting, no one should ever take that.

Aren't they just airheads?

I dislike him, he has funny eyes. Charlie's death was an injustice, a huge part of the show died along with him.

Where are the masculinists? There's feminists, but no masculinists. I hereby propose I become the first masculinist. Our first project will be to demand quadruple pay!

Yes but it would reduce a chunk of the workforce of Britain to a quivering wreck of junkies.