4/20 plans

[fezzyfestoon]

The activities appropriate for such a day.
edit: smoking and ordering domino's

This, some Donkey Kong and probably drinking at night. But alas...I don't get out of work til 4:30

[fezzyfestoon]

My day: Shuffling through plat maps to assess lot sizes and dimensions in 19th century village and city plans.

My evening: Campfire with friends. Probably not smoking anything but cigars. (Weed and friends don't mix well anyway, in my experience.)

It must be your friends.

[fezzyfestoon]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

[fezzyfestoon]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

[fezzyfestoon]

I love how seriously non-smokers take the issue of smoking. It just makes it that much more obvious that they've never smoked. It's like a virgin devoting his life to the cause of abstinence and expecting to be taken seriously.

Forgive me if I don't understand why exactly either of these are illegitimate or unserious things to do, theoretically speaking.

It makes objectivity impossible. Shouldn't the most trusted people on an issue be those with the most experience with it?

That also makes objectivity impossible. Who has more experience with abstinence than virgins, or with not smoking than non-smokers? There's no 'objective' level of experience to have had. It all depends on what one frames as the positive assertion of a position that needs to be defended.

No, I disagree. Having sex or being high are very temporary conditions. Virginity and never having smoked are permanent, uninterrupted states. Despite the cultural stigmas, having achieved an altered mental state is not a permanent, constant state of being. It's just another experience. It's absurd to contest that the absence of experience is the basis of the most informed opinions.

[fezzyfestoon]

...

You are mind numbingly dense.

How did I come here to air my superiority? My post was directly in response to posts from others that wanted explanations for non-smokers "strange" values. Just because the thread is about smoking doesn't mean your reactions towards non-smokers aren't self righteous. That makes literally no sense. I understand the topic was about smoking but that doesn't mean my commentary is meant to be "morally superior."

Right, just because someone doesn't have plans doesn't mean they're barred from discussing it. Like when I said I had no interest in buying guns in the gun ownership thread. Though forgive me as I'm on my phone and it's a pain in the ass to go back and read on, I don't recall anyone being mocked for not smoking. Which reminds me of my last post, how it makes no sense to me how seriously people take it. I can't imagine someone who smokes (other than teenagers trying to be badass) actually taking malicious aim at someone else simply based on the nature of the substance I general. Plus, it's such a non-issue for everyone but obnoxious self-righteous types on both sides. Like those California people going all crazy about the medicine and social conservatives bitching about society and some lack of morals.

[fezzyfestoon]

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I don't believe there is any level of experience that would tender objective opinions about these things using your definition. I also happen to think past experiences of any kind change the nature of future experiences, which, again, I'm not limiting to these particular issues. I can understand the value of experience if we are looking for maximally informed positions but I simply don't think unexperienced people's positions should be thought to be less objective, particularly if they ostensibly derive from first principles. (Deriving opinions on very specific issues from first principles can be suspect for other reasons, of course, but I don't believe that's especially relevant here.)

Would an ideal observer be infinitely experienced, and if so, is that simply necessary to achieve infinite understanding (which I am not convinced of, by the by) or is it itself intrinsically important?

To answer your closing question first, yes. The more experience you have with anything, the more informed you become quite basically. No one can ever be completely experienced or completely objective, but the idea is to get as close as possible. And in this particular case, I think an altered state of mind cannot be objectively approached at all without ever having experienced it. How can someone understand it when their understanding under the influence is altered?

[fezzyfestoon]

I understand what you're saying, but the desire to not alter one's state of mind beyond necessity is also one that can be positively argued for; experience isn't really quite as relevant there, since it's the default state. I wouldn't trust an anti-drug activist's opinions on the specifics of altered states, certainly, or a virgin's hot sex tips.

Right, ok. I don't think there was that much of a disagreement after all. I was probably smoking when I first posted haha