Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like you are calling me an idiot.  You calling me a troll is truly laughable.  You present something as a fact when you admittedly don't know is what sounds like trolling. I don't care what you think you know, you definitely don't know as much as you think you do.   I also don't care if you don't like my method of giving that information.  YOU are the one causing trouble by posting something about which you admittedly know nothing about. You know that "high" means "drunk" because you have heard it.  Fine. I know that "high" means "on drugs" because I've heard it, and NEVER heard it to mean "drunk." Why does that make YOU know more about it than me?  It doesn't. If I don't know jack about it, neither do you. Troll. EDITED TO ADD: By the way, you said in your last paragraph, in so many words, that I started the fight by posting about something that I know nothing about.  If you'll just take a look at the thread, you'll see that we began the arguement about the meaning of "high" AFTER you posted your sarcastic, vitriolic post, so don't tell me that I was the one causing trouble.

You cause trouble by assuming something that had no basis in fact.  It's called bullshit.  I called you on it.  You started the argument about the meaning of "high" by posting that it meant only one thing.

Quoted: You cause trouble by assuming something that had no basis in fact.  It's called bullshit.  I called you on it.  You started the argument about the meaning of "high" by posting that it meant only one thing.

And you posted claiming that it means something else.  That somehow makes you more correct?

How is assuming that someone who claims to be high is on drugs "assuming something that has no basis in fact?"  Even more, how in the hell is it causing trouble?  What is wrong with you?

Quoted: Quoted: You cause trouble by assuming something that had no basis in fact.  It's called bullshit.  I called you on it.  You started the argument about the meaning of "high" by posting that it meant only one thing. And you posted claiming that it means something else.  That somehow makes you more correct?

Yes, because it is true.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You cause trouble by assuming something that had no basis in fact.  It's called bullshit.  I called you on it.  You started the argument about the meaning of "high" by posting that it meant only one thing. And you posted claiming that it means something else.  That somehow makes you more correct? Yes, because it is true.

And I'm telling you that what I'm saying is true.  Both of us are giving anecdotal evidence based on our experience.  Neither of us are more correct.  You claim you've heard it.  I claim that I have not.  If it were used in the way you say it is, I would have heard it.  Sitting on your high horse will only make the fall harder.

Just assume it's a regional dialect, and then we both win.

If someone yells that they are drunk, I would assume that they have been drinking alcohol.  If someone yells that they're high, I would assume that they have taken drugs.  Makes perfect sense to me.

I made the most logical assumption based on my experience.  The assumption made more sense than the minimum needed for making a well-grounded assumption.  We all make assumptions this way.  Does that make me a trouble starter?

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not calling you a liar, I'm calling you an idiot, or else what you are referring to is a regional thing.   Next time you call someone an idiot- or any other insult- say goodbye to everyone

Fine, but I still contend that he went far beyond giving a polite word of advice.  Look at his first comment - "But hey, let's not common sense interrupt the ignorance."  There are words for that attitude.  I think the "T" word fits.  His comment certainly did not follow with the light-hearted spirit of my original post.  He could have said, "Actually, people do use the word "high" to mean "drunk" sometimes, and a person on pot would probably not go out and scream.  It sounds more like a bunch of drunks."

If the above post violates the CoC, tell me and I'll delete it.  I don't want to get banned for posting a funny story.

First he started out by drinking a few beers in the early afternoon.
He felt a little bit sleepy, so he took a couple of cross-tops to wake him up.
Feeling a little bit jittery from the cross-tops he took a few valium to take the egde off.
Now feeling a little bit disconnected from himself he ate a few ounces of mushrooms to get bakc in touch with himself.
Feeling a little bit spaced out he snorted a few lines of cocaine to keep him mind focused.
Finding that he was hungry but was unable to eat he smoked a few joints of some home grown bud.
Now that he was high he figured that he needed to expand his horizons, so he dropped a few tabs of LSD.
In the middle of his trip he was thirsty, so he drank half a bottle of Jack Danials.
Once again he was a little bit off, so he now snorted a few lines of meth to get the heart pumping.
Finding his hands a little unstable he sat down, cooked some heroin up and injected himself with the smack.

That's probably about the time he was telling the world he was high.....

Raoul Duke: We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole multi colored collection of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon.

Bottom line is, if you don't like .gov violating your personal rights concerning such stuff as full auto, you should also recognize the right of people to alter their own consciousness via smoking pot, as long as they do not endanger anyone else.

It is a matter of personal freedoms and the nanny state.

I am constantly amazed that more on this board don't GET this simple concept.

I've heard people in my "region" say they were high when they were under the influence of alcohol

Seems like that has happened about 4 times in the last 30-40 years, high usually means other drugs

I love all of the POT APOLOGISTS on this site!

Wait until all of the Meth-Heads have an affinity for
AR-15-type rifles; we'll have METH APOLOGISTS, too!

You know, cuz the government does not have the right to
limit or outlaw an individual's addictions.  (cocaine, Meth, Kiddie Porn)
Get a clue folks.

B_S

Quoted: You know, cuz the government does not have the right to limit or outlaw an individual's addictions.

correct.

Quoted: I love all of the POT APOLOGISTS on this site! Wait until all of the Meth-Heads have an affinity for AR-15-type rifles; we'll have METH APOLOGISTS, too! You know, cuz the government does not have the right to limit or outlaw an individual's addictions.  (cocaine, Meth, Kiddie Porn) Get a clue folks. B_S

You are comparing drugs to kiddie porn?  What planet are you from?

On the planet Earth, kiddie porn involves victims and terrible, immoral behavoir, whereas with drugs you're only hurting yourself.  And sometimes you aren't even doing that.  A little pot never hurt anyone.

Tell me:  Have you ever done pot?  If you haven't, you may be interested to know that its effects are very similar to alcohol, without all of the bad side effects (hangover, vomiting).  Essentially it's alcohol in smoke form.  How can you say that one is bad and the other is not?  More importantly, why is the government allowed to say that alcohol is OK but you go to the slammer for smoking weed?

For the record, I got a chance to try it recently just to see what the talk was all about and to get the experience so I could talk about it.  I am not planning to do it again.

Quoted: Well gee, "high" is what many people use to describe being drunk

+infinity.