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.

 

Colorado businessman blames 'stoned' workers for move to SC

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: tinker9917

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: tinker9917
Why is it that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it is ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time?


I actually haven't seen anyone in the thread say that. Pretty much every one in this thread has stated that if someone shows up to work high, the business owner should definitely have the right to fire them.

Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean you have to make stuff up and put words in people's mouths to discredit your opposition.

There's a hell of a lot of grey area between "Marijuana should be legalized" and "it's ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time".

Knock it off with the intellectual dishonesty.


Maybe you should quote my whole statement, not just part of it... and make what stuff up????



I edited to avoid the dreaded "wall of text" but since you insist...


Why is it that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it is ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time? Would that be ok with alcohol??? NO... not with alcohol and not ok with pot either.

Who wants to live high all the time??? or drunk all the time??? I feel sorry for the ones who want to live like that. Sure, end of the day wind down... but all day every day???? I have better things to accomplish in life than that.


How does that change anything that I said in response to your statement?

No one in this thread has said "it's ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time". No one has said "I want to live high all the time."

Therefore, as I said before, you are putting words into people's mouths to discredit your opposition.

I'm not sure why I had to repeat myself for you to get it... but I digress.


The people in the STORY came to work stoned every day, but you would like to bait and switch with a strawman to debate what people in this thread have stated when the thread is about the story not them.

And you called me the master of straw man which also detracted from the story.

I see a pattern of ignoring the story.




posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
You are comparing apples to oranges, this man's business was hand eye coordination manipulating materials while expressing artistic ability and he had to fire 20 out of 25 artists. Far different than being zoned out typing on a keyboard.



Are you a touch typist? I assure you that typing at a rate greater than hunt-and-peck requires coordination, making rapid unconscious decisions, and muscle memory.

And the fact that you imagine one can code / program while "zoned out" is purely laughable. I also think you imagine cannabis has far more of an effect on a regular smoker than it actually does.

And as far as comparing "apples to oranges" it has already been pointed out to you (more than once) that artists (like sculptors) have been using cannabis as an aid to creativity for a very long time now.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: tinker9917

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: tinker9917
Why is it that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it is ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time?


I actually haven't seen anyone in the thread say that. Pretty much every one in this thread has stated that if someone shows up to work high, the business owner should definitely have the right to fire them.

Just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean you have to make stuff up and put words in people's mouths to discredit your opposition.

There's a hell of a lot of grey area between "Marijuana should be legalized" and "it's ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time".

Knock it off with the intellectual dishonesty.


Maybe you should quote my whole statement, not just part of it... and make what stuff up????



I edited to avoid the dreaded "wall of text" but since you insist...


Why is it that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it is ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time? Would that be ok with alcohol??? NO... not with alcohol and not ok with pot either.

Who wants to live high all the time??? or drunk all the time??? I feel sorry for the ones who want to live like that. Sure, end of the day wind down... but all day every day???? I have better things to accomplish in life than that.


How does that change anything that I said in response to your statement?

No one in this thread has said "it's ok to get stoned day in and day out, go to work stoned, and be high all the time". No one has said "I want to live high all the time."

Therefore, as I said before, you are putting words into people's mouths to discredit your opposition.

I'm not sure why I had to repeat myself for you to get it... but I digress.


The people in the STORY came to work stoned every day, but you would like to bait and switch with a strawman to debate what people in this thread have stated when the thread is about the story not them.

And you called me the master of straw man which also detracted from the story.

I see a pattern of ignoring the story.


No, I didn't ignore the story. Nowhere in the story does it say "they came to work stoned every day." Nowhere in the story does it say "they stay high all the time, every day." That is what tinker9917 claimed we were supporting and he was putting words into our mouths.

You conveniently chose to only post the first part of the story, and not the second part where the business owner says his words were twisted by people with an agenda... just like you twist the words of others to support your own agenda.

You've also ignored the other reasons presented for the man moving his business to Myrtle Beach.

You've continually ignored anything that goes against your initial statement and countered with more nonsense which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with you as a "stoner" whose "addiction" keeps them from "seeing the truth."

I'd say most of the people disagreeing with you in this thread, like myself, don't even partake in cannabis. You're so blinded by your agenda that you see two sides to the story: your side which is right and everyone else's side which is just the stupid ranting of "stoners" and "addicts."

You may want to look up the definitions of "strawman argument" and "bait and switch." If you're going to use those terms, you should at least use them correctly. You have shown repeatedly on this forum that you lack the capacity to engage in an intellectually honest debate and it's incredibly annoying.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm going to put this in a separate post so you can clearly see it.

This is all from the story that YOU posted:


But Brawner told FoxNews.com Friday his comments got “twisted out of proportion,” although he did not deny relocating to the Myrtle Beach area, where smoking pot is still illegal.

“They had an agenda. They got what they wanted and not what they heard,” he said.



The local Chamber of Commerce lured Brawner to move with a $25,000 grant.



The Myrtle Beach Sun News reported that back in Colorado, Brawner had been dealing with a “nasty” local government regulator and too many stoned workers. Those problems made his wife’s entreaties to move more appealing.



Now Brawner would like to take back remarks he made to KUSA like this one:

“A painter doesn’t do production as quick as we want. If you build a house you can build a house to the plans. When we’re asking you to sculpt a giant dinosaur, and it has to have personality and stuff, when you’re high you can’t see it. Your whole body says its good enough, when it’s not. The quality suffers.”



A Colorado business group told the station Little Spider’s departure is the first they heard of a company leaving the state because of legalized marijuana.

Speaking to FoxNews.com, Brawner just wanted his marijuana remarks to go puff.

He declined to say how his comments, which were audio-taped, could have been misconstrued.


So it's all about the stoned workers but now the business owner is backpeddling his ass off, accusing the media of twisting his words, and it just so happens that his wife wanted to move anyway, he got a $25,000 grant from SC, and he was having issues with the local govn't in Colorado.

You read the article, took the tiny bit you wanted to believe, and ran with it. You didn't even notice the rest. As usual, you cling to shaky anecdotal evidence that supports your opinion and deny everything else.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Two more insulting walls of text filled with personal attacks later and it still doesn't change the fact that 20 out of 25 of his artists got fired for being stoned on the job.
edit on 26-4-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Well, isn't it true that Shakespeare lived in a time when people were always mixing compounds and weeds? This sounds to me more like astrology and alchemy, which is what Shakespeare wrote about...a lot.

And they would not have called it a noted weed as they do today. He might as well have been talking about tobacco.

From yours


To new-found methods and to compounds strange?


That is plural, he was talking about alchemy. Superstition and Alchemy in Shakespeare's day.

And what Shakespeare wrote about alchemy.

There is no evidence that it was marijuana and I think people are reading into the text what isn't there. They would like it to be marijuana, but Shakespeare was quite proficient without it.

Also from your source


'compound' known as early as 1530 to mean a substance formed by a chemical union of two or more ingredients:


Alchemy.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: windword


Well, isn't it true that Shakespeare lived in a time when people were always mixing compounds and weeds? This sounds to me more like astrology and alchemy, which is what Shakespeare wrote about...a lot.

And they would not have called it a noted weed as they do today. He might as well have been talking about tobacco.

From yours


To new-found methods and to compounds strange?


That is plural, he was talking about alchemy. Superstition and Alchemy in Shakespeare's day.

And what Shakespeare wrote about alchemy.

There is no evidence that it was marijuana and I think people are reading into the text what isn't there. They would like it to be marijuana, but Shakespeare was quite proficient without it.

Also from your source


'compound' known as early as 1530 to mean a substance formed by a chemical union of two or more ingredients:


Alchemy.


Their propaganda is robbing Shakespeare now? Never noticed it tucked in with all the other silliness they claim, thanks for pointing that out
edit on 26-4-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

It seems pretty straight forward to me. What other weed piques one's appetite? Marijuana does grow like a weed.

But sure, it could have been opium or hashish. In Shakespeare's time, they used to say "Going down river" because to score drugs you had to take a boat down river to the slums to hang out in the opium dens and hashish parlors. The slums and ghettos were down river because the rich and upper class, who lived up river, used the river for trash and sewage. So, the further down river the worse the water. The worse the water, the better the drugs, so they said.

I doubt that Shakespeare, who seems to laud the "weed", would have lauded a session down river in an opium den with same sentiment.. Sometime the simpler answer is the right one. Weed is just about as simple as it gets.


1533 King Henry VIII fines farmers if they do not raise hemp for industrial use.
1549 Angolan slaves brought cannabis with them to the sugar plantations of northeastern Brazil. They were permitted to plant their cannabis between rows of cane, and to smoke it between harvests.
c. 1550 The epic poem, Benk u Bode, by the poet Mohammed Ebn Soleiman Foruli of Baghdad, deals allegorically with a dialectical battle between wine and hashish.
1563 Portuguese physician Garcia da Orta reports on marijuana's medicinal effects.
1578 China's Li Shih-Chen writes of the antibiotic and antiemetic effects of marijuana.
1600 England begins to import hemp from Russia.
1606-1632 French and British cultivate Cannabis for hemp at their colonies in Port Royal (1606), Virginia (1611), and Plymouth (1632).
1616 Jamestown settlers began growing the hemp plant for its unusually strong fiber and used it to make rope, sails, and clothing.
1621 Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy suggests marijuana may treat depression.
1600-1700 Use of hashish, alcohol, and opium spreads among the population of occupied Constantinople. Hashish becomes a major trade item between Central Asia and South Asia.
1753 Linnaeus classifies Cannabis sativa.
1764 Medical marijuana appears in The New England Dispensatory.
1776 Kentucky begins growing hemp.
1794 Medical marijuana appears in The Edinburgh New Dispensary.
1798 Napoleon discovers that much of the Egyptian lower class habitually uses hashish. Soldiers returning to France bring the tradition with them, and he declares a total prohibition.
1800- Marijuana plantations flourished in Mississippi, Georgia, California, South Carolina, Nebraska, New York, and Kentucky. Also during this period, smoking hashish was popular throughout France and to a lesser degree in the US. Hashish production expands from Russian Turkestan into Yarkand in Chinese Turkestan.
www.advancedholistichealth.org...



Did Shakespeare Puff on "Noted Weed"?
Shaun Smillie
for National Geographic News
(March 1, 2001)

A study of several 17th-century smoking pipes, including a number found in the garden of Shakespeare's home in England, has revealed traces of cannabis, according to South African scientists.

The South African Police Services Forensic Science Laboratory in Pretoria analyzed the stems and bowls of 24 clay pipes and found traces of tobacco, suggestive evidence of cannabis—and mysteriously, two of the pipes showed signs of what looks like coc aine.
news.nationalgeographic.com...



edit on 26-4-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Two more insulting walls of text filled with personal attacks later and it still doesn't change the fact that 20 out of 25 of his artists got fired for being stoned on the job.


If you can make a case to the mods that I personally attacked you in those posts, do so and have them removed.

You can't so you won't.

Have you thought that maybe... just maybe... he was looking for a reason to fire his workers so he could move to Myrtle Beach without paying them any sort of severance? Nah, couldn't be it...



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

A wall of text is a barely comprehensible stream-of-consciousness with zero punctuation or paragraphs. A long post isn't a 'wall of text.' That term doesn't mean what you think it means. I gather that happens to you a lot.

A long, well thought out reply is just that. Dismissing it as a 'wall of text' doesn't work. The poster actually read the article, cited how it doesn't say what you say it does. Basically proves that you're either lying or grossly ill informed.

Face facts - you've lost this one. I've yet to see you on the winning side of any debate on ATS. You're a prolific poster of utter nonsense.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Well speaking for myself I'm NOT like you or your people.
Let's just say I went the other way yet am Hyper creative,by nature .
I have PTSD from Desert Storm,my mind is always RACING and It helps me in concetration to do what ever creatively I have the tools around me to do.
I am a Rocky Mtn man,guns and all who now wants to paint and draw or sculpt.
I 'v worked with a rifle then my back and finally my intellect as long as I could,those are my final skills.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

There still needs to be evidence, instead of speculation.

Let them find the body, exhume it, do an autopsy and then we will know. Otherwise, speculation.

Have they even found evidence such as marijuana seeds on his property?

I still say that no, he did not use marijuana and in fact, spent much of his literary life in London. His wife took care of the house. That was pretty common back in those days, the men went to London to do their work. If it were anywhere, it would have been in London, then possibly it was opium.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Technically it is speculation both ways if the only fact you will accept if the body is examined.

Obviously they won't happen but his writings seem to point to him indulging as well as some physical evidence found.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WarminIndy

Technically it is speculation both ways if the only fact you will accept if the body is examined.

Obviously they won't happen but his writings seem to point to him indulging as well as some physical evidence found.


HMMM, can I use your argument in a religious debate?

No one can prove that it was marijuana and in English Literature class, I would call that "weeding the text". I punned that from "queering the text" of where people read into the text to support the idea that the author was gay.

That seems to be what is happening here...weeding the text. (Weeding as in weed, not as in Elmer Fudd)



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Sure, you can use what ever you want in a religious argument. Not sure what that has to do with this.

I think it is more the pipes found plus what he wrote.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... it is probably a duck. Feel free to use that gem anytime too.

It doesn't and shouldn't take anything from his legacy in anyone's eyes if he did indulge, nor does it say that if you do then you will have his talent.

It is my experience those that are the most against drugs are those that have never had the life experience.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: WarminIndy

Sure, you can use what ever you want in a religious argument. Not sure what that has to do with this.

I think it is more the pipes found plus what he wrote.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... it is probably a duck. Feel free to use that gem anytime too.

It doesn't and shouldn't take anything from his legacy in anyone's eyes if he did indulge, nor does it say that if you do then you will have his talent.

It is my experience those that are the most against drugs are those that have never had the life experience.





um yeah, the most experience I have had with it was watching the intelligent meltdown of those who used it while trying to work.

Sorry, can't convince me, I've seen too many people on it.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Monger
a reply to: TinfoilTP

A wall of text is a barely comprehensible stream-of-consciousness with zero punctuation or paragraphs. A long post isn't a 'wall of text.' That term doesn't mean what you think it means. I gather that happens to you a lot.

A long, well thought out reply is just that. Dismissing it as a 'wall of text' doesn't work. The poster actually read the article, cited how it doesn't say what you say it does. Basically proves that you're either lying or grossly ill informed.

Face facts - you've lost this one. I've yet to see you on the winning side of any debate on ATS. You're a prolific poster of utter nonsense.


It is impossible for your side to have a cancer causing mind altering substance come out smelling like roses showering benefits onto humanity by a group of users who are so dependent on it that they do it at work.


. Attention, memory and learning are impaired among heavy marijuana users, even after users discontinued its use for at least 24 hours. Heavy marijuana use is associated with residual neuropsychological effects even after a day of supervised abstinence from the drug. Heavy users displayed significantly greater impairment than light users on attention/executive functions, as evidenced particularly by greater preservations on card sorting and reduced learning of word lists. These differences remained after controlling for potential confounding variables, such as estimated levels of premorbid cognitive functioning, and for use of alcohol and other substances in the two groups. However, the question remains open as to whether this impairment is due to a residue of drug in the brain, a withdrawal effect from the drug, or a frank neurotoxic effect of the drug. ("The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy Marijuana Use in College Students," Pope, HG Jr., Yurgelun-Todd, D., Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, McLean Hospital, Belmont, MA, JAMA February 21, 1996.)


That is just the opener on that list of peer reviewed subject matter on the ills of pot smoking.

Source


The daily use of 1 to 3 marijuana joints appears to produce approximately the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking 5 times as many cigarettes. (UCLA) The study results suggest that the way smokers inhale marijuana, in addition to its chemical composition, increases the adverse physical effects. The same lung cancer risks associated with tobacco also apply to marijuana users, even though they smoke far less. (reported in NIDA Capsules)



Benzopyrene is the chemical in tobacco that causes lung cancer. An average marijuana cigarette contains nearly 50% more benzopyrene than a tobacco cigarette. An average marijuana cigarette contains 30 nanograms of this carcinogen compared to 21 nanograms in an average tobacco cigarette (Marijuana and Health, National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine Report, 1982) Benzopyrene suppresses a gene that controls growth of cells. When this gene is damaged the body becomes more susceptible to cancer. This gene is related to half of all human cancers and as many as 70% of lung cancers.



An "amotivational syndrome" can develop in heavy, chronic marijuana users. It is characterized by decreased drive and ambition, shortened attention span, poor judgment, high distractibility, impaired communication skills, and diminished effectiveness in interpersonal situations. (National Institute of Drug Abuse)


You are only convincing the dependent users by denying the studies.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Studies form 96 and 82??

God forbid there have been advances in research since then.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP


That is just the opener on that list of peer reviewed subject matter on the ills of pot smoking.


So after countless science-based and evolution threads where you've completely dismissed all of the peer-reviewed studies, suddenly now when it supposedly supports your agenda, you cling to peer-reviewed research as though it's the gold standard of information?

You can find a handful of studies that claim to show negative effects of MJ and countless others that show that it is beneficial.

I'll post some examples even though you won't read them:
60 Peer Reviewed Studies of Medical Marijuana

Cancer.gov discussing the benefits for cancer patients.



posted on Apr, 26 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Studies form 96 and 82??

God forbid there have been advances in research since then.


So we should throw out Darwin's studies and everyone elses studies on every subject unless they were in an acceptable year to you? People were somehow different back then? Their bodies don't count or something? Chemical bonds were diferent? Genes were different? This is ridiculous.




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join