It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mattifikation
I know it must feel great to know that nobody can specifically address your lame rhetoric without violating the new rules,
Originally posted by saint4God
Don't hate, appreciate. The idea is that if it's 'violating the new rules' that there must be some reason for the 'rules' well worth investigating. Could it be that there is some kind of substantiation? Could it be this is another move to 'deny ignorance'? The answer is clear and now mandated.
Originally posted by TNT13
(one example: it kept my best friends father alive much longer while he had cancer, he said he couldn't eat without it and it did greatly help with keeping vital weight on during kemo. Yes he still died but he lived 3 years when he was given 3 months; my point is that there is a pro and con to most things you just have to venture out of your box.)
Originally posted by TNT13
Well we're talking about marijuana here not narcotics, per the subject of the thread. So I'd suggest instead of being cocky you find the right thread to talk about NARCOTICS in because this clearly isn't it. If you can't understand that I doubt I'm going to be very much help illuminating the difference.
- www.merriam-webster.com...
Main Entry: 1nar·cot·ic
Function: noun
1 a: a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b: a drug (as marijuana or '___') subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2: something that soothes, relieves, or lulls