definiton of "stoner"

What kind've question is that?
Does someone who is proud of being black have values and beliefs that match the black mindset?
Does every proud Christian have the same interpretation of the Bible?

 

Pothead - stoned near all the time, has a giant hard on for weed
Stoner- Someone who enjoys pot enough that they'll make the effort to try and go buy their own from at least time to time
Smoker - Someone who doesn't really smoke but might take a few hits if it's offered

 

agreed

 

so what is everyone?

i used to be a pothead, but am now a stoner, maybe a "light stoner."

sure i'm proud to be a stoner. more so than i am to be american (not really, don't patriot act me)
because compared to alcohol and tobacco, i don't think there is reason for them to be legal and marijuana illegal. the drinker vs. the smoker could just be a personality choice, as would be the "abstain-er."

and if a symptom of weed addiction is being anti social...think about if you could go to the bar, and order a joint! problem solved.

i don't agree with that definition of smoker. "a smoker doesn't really smoke"?
that can't be right.

that was funny:smilielol5:

one who stones would be one throwing stones in a stoning - to kill someone...if you didn't know.

you guys still proud to be a stoner?

 

Not all my beliefs are of that mindset, but there are many that are. I've chosen my own path, created my own essence, man is what he believes, to know oneself, one must assert oneself. I believe in belief. I believe in the harm principle. I'm proud to be on the just side of this arguement (between stoners and the gov) because i've chosen to see through the bullshit propaganda and experiance for myself. I made autonomous decisions and i accept all responsability for my actions. I'm proud to smoke cannabis, i don't hide it, nor necessarily flaunt it. But if someone has a problem with me solely because i consume a substance that they disagree with, even though i'm not harming them in any way, then they don't deserve my respect. They're intolerant. I'm proud to be liberal and tolerant. You should never be ashamed of something you do that makes you happy, as long as you aren't harming anyone.

Dave: The majority doesn't mean they're smarter or intellectual or right then the minority. More people believe in God then don't but that doesn't me he exists. The majority thought the world was flat, etc. There's many more examples of tyrannies of the majority, including segregation and slavery. Normal doesn't exist, there's conforming to the status quo, but eras and times are just as fallible as mankind.

 

I understand and wouldn't think they are But I understand it's more about being proud because you're liberal and tolerant (which may go hand in hand with smoking cannabis) than just because you are a stoner. I mean you don't have to be a stoner to see through the bullshit propaganda and be liberal and tolerant right. And there are terribly closeminded stoners who may think all is fine with them if only they have their smoke. But I guess it's also your personal view on what a stoner is indeed. I can't blame people for being ignorant if they don't understand your pride at first though.

There's is a lot of difference in being proud on your skin colour, being a christian or being a stoner in my opinion. I asked the question not for nothing by the way, please read back.

 

I did read it. I don't see very much difference, and I still find your question rather moot.
No matter what label a person is proud of, there are going to be people who fit the prototypical mindset more so than others. There are going to be people who define themselves more by the label than others. No matter what the label is, the people who define themselves solely by that label will be rather minor.

 

There's not much difference in being proud on your skin colour (something you can not take any credit for, you're born with it) and your beliefs and morals (things that you shaped and choose to define you so to speak)?

 

"Dave: The majority doesn't mean they're smarter or intellectual or right then the minority. More people believe in God then don't but that doesn't me he exists. The majority thought the world was flat, etc. There's many more examples of tyrannies of the majority, including segregation and slavery. Normal doesn't exist, there's conforming to the status quo, but eras and times are just as fallible as mankind."

i never said or implied that the majority is smarter or more intellectual than the minority we are talking about (stoners/potheads).

 

More people don't smoke cannabis then do, it doesn't make them better or worse or right or wrong or any more normal as opposed to abnormal. People are only 'anti social' on cannabis because society in general doesn't like us or what we do. We are therefore forced to hide if we want to survive with our liberty in tact.

 

because it shouldn't matter what you do you should be proud of it because i doesnt matter what other people think your life is you life so might as well be proud of it.


and to some other posts weed is NOT addictive yes it can be a habbit but anything can be but it is most definitly not an addiction!

o and i am proud to say i think im right inbetween stoner and pot head

 

It shouldn't matter what you do, you should be proud of it anyway? Your life is your life so you may as well be proud of it? I don't agree at all, or I don't get your point.
Why be proud on something just because it's you or yours? It's not that if you're not proud of yourself or something there's no choice to be ashamed instead right. I mean, pride may have it's use as it's a good egobooster and it can be very righteous, but it can also be misplaced easily and even be disgusting in my opinion as people wallow in it.
Lots of times I see people being proud for things they have no reason to (nationality and race are obvious reasons, but some are more subtile) because they can't take any credit for it.
While a person chooses to be a stoner (generally ) and have the hand in becoming one and thus can be proud on it, I don't feel proud myself at all because I fit the generalizations. I do have pride about myself, don't worry , but I see that apart from the fact I fit in the stoner label. Reefer rogue gave a good explanation why he personally is proud on it though, but I just wander what in general makes people proud on being a stoner and I suspect it's either because they fill in the definition of stoner differently/personal or because they take pride in anything that they do and are 'just because it's them'.

 

one reason i'm proud to be a stoner is that i don't fit the stereotypical "stupid stoner."

i've always done really well in school while smoking pot, so i help to give us stoners a good name.

 

Hm, I can see how that is debatable.
However, the religious example still stands.
And it's nice that you nitpicked and completely ignored the rest (and point) of my post. A real politician you are =)

 

weed is psychologically addictive, you are wrong when you say weed is NOT addictive. but don't take my word for it, go look up what psychological addiction is.

 

I see that the interventionist rhetoric has migrated from the closed discussion to here. I object to the notion of psychological addiction because it strikes me as a cop-out for a simple lack of self control. Characterizing marijuana as having any sort of addictive properties only dignifies laws that criminalizes it. By giving a stepping stone to maintaining its status as a controlled substance such rhetoric enables the powers that be divert attention from the origin of the prohibition- which was rooted in racism and a desire to thwart its potential to give stiff competition to established non-pharmaceutical industries that had been hit by the depression in the 30's.

Anything can be "psychologically addictive" to anyone wishing to abandon language that alludes to personal responsibility- or lack thereof. I imagine that with some research and skill one can put together a "study" complete with statistics that make a strong case for controlling coffee, chocolate, potato chips, or even water as a potential "addictive". Please lose the interventionist, self righteous dialog as it seems calculated to incite arguments that will most certainly accomplish nothing here.

Peace.

 

what the fuck man? you read way too much into what i said.

weed is psychologically addictive, you even say that in your post. you may object to the notion but you have to realise that different substances and things have different levels of potential for psychological addiction, weed has a relatively high potential compared to most things for obvious reasons.

i'm not being "interventionist" or "self righteous", i'm merely correcting an error in a post. i am completely 100% against any criminal punishment being associated with cannabis and think all drugs should be legalised. however i am 100% for correct information being spread and equally against the spread of misinformation; saying weed is not addictive is incorrect, as it is psychologically addictive.

 

Weed is only as addictive as any of life's other pleasures. The bottom line is this: If you smoke weed daily for 3 months and all of a sudden stop, your body isn't going to make you feel like utter shit because it thinks "zomg where the bud at." That's what an addiction is.

 

psychological addiction is attributing a personality trait of the user to the object being used.

 

Psychological dependency is a dependency of the mind, and leads to psychological withdrawal symptoms (such as cravings, irritability, insomnia, depression, anorexia, etc). Addiction can in theory be derived from any rewarding behaviour, and is believed to be strongly associated with the dopaminergic system of the brain's reward system (as in the case of cocaine and amphetamines). Some claim that it is a habitual means to avoid undesired activity, but typically it is only so to a clinical level in individuals who have emotional, social, or psychological dysfunctions (psychological addiction is defined as such), replacing normal positive stimuli not otherwise attained (see Rat Park).

from wikipedia addiction page.

in addition, it has been shown that cannabinoids, through an unknown mechanism, activate endogenous opioid pathways involving the μ1 opioid receptor, precipitating a dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens.

from wikipedia THC page


weed causes direct stimulation of the brains dopaminergic systems, it has a high potential for psychological addiction compared to other things. not saying that means that a lot of people get psychologically addicted to weed, i don't know what percentage of smokers are psychologically dependent, however the potential is there; it is incorrect to say that weed is not addictive.