Constant Reader,
I think it is possible that you did misunderstand.
I wrote, "X's statements about the "good" from pot are the classic sign of the pothead."
"The" refers to the general and need not be specific to person referenced.
It might have been clearer for you had I said, X's statements about the "good" in pot remind me of similar arguments I have heard before, which were presented by known potheads and general low-life parasites within our society.
Had I said for example, "X is making statements that only potheads make" or "The statement that X made is just what I would expect from a pothead" then it would be specific to X.
That is not the case here. I was making reference to personal experience where I had witnessed the steady erosion of both intellect, and to a much greater degree personal motivation, of regular and habitual pot smokers: all under the guise that they, "haven't changed a bit".
Implications, at least in this case, would be the responsibility of the reader.
As for proof, well none is required. I think that libel for damage to someone's moniker would make for an interest debate, but one I would rather leave to the lawyers. Of course my assumption regarding your intention might be erroneous -g-
If you wish to engage in a healthy debate regarding the drug war, or any of its repercussions, I'm game. I don't take my toys and go home when I start to lose, and I would expect and require the same from you.
Please keep in mind, my ability and willieness to "spin" is limited -g-
HAGO
TH |
