>>25970209 This might be bait, but how is it so "easy" to catch pot smokers, andwhat liberal laws made it harder for cops to catch them? Do you think they should be allowed to search your house without a warrant or something?
>>25971046 yes. It would force traffic to go underground reducing circulation. underground traffic could then be countered using antigang activity. Use rates would drop due to police pressure
this has happened, as I am always bragging of, in singapore. It can work in any western country willing to take a totalitarian approach to social control. Marijuana use should be reduced and a larger police presence benefits everyone
>>25971184 it has a neurotoxic effect that lowers intelligence, induces schizophrenia, alters brain functioning to increase lethargy, can cause anxiety and paranoia, decreases personal competency, alters sperm to be less potent, is part of a broader degenerate social agenda that is better off being crushed, is cancerous, can cause pulmonary disease and harms heart functioning, and smells like shit
yes, I think it should be prohibited. I also think alcohol should be restricted using passive means to pubs only as a way of reducing use. A strong policing system is not to be irrationally feared, it should be the cumulation of a strong government taking control of society for eugenic purposes and creating social harmony
Because the purpose of the War on Drugs isn't prevention.
When you consider the interested parties in molding drug policy you see its about advancing the careers of politicians as well as facilitating the lucrative prison industry and as a bonus getting undesirables off the streets.
>>25971289 You think you can do anything to unfuck the Western world?
Things have been going downhill ever since the US decided it was a good idea to murder their brothers to protect the banks that had just thrown the country into the Depression, and to help jumpstart the USSR, and fill American universities with Communist radicals.
At this point all you should worry about is your own life, and just passively watch the fall.
>>25970209 Hmm, nope, I happen to be using this bong for tobacco only. You can't spy on me due to this thing which you have probably never read before. You can buy it on amazon pretty cheaply, I suggest you do so. It's called The Constitution of the United States.
>>25971841 >Danish researchers still found a link between marijuana and lower sperm levels >marijuana abusers had significantly blunted behavioral, cardiovascular, and brain dopamine responses to the stimulant. Their heart rate and blood pressure were lower in comparison, and they reported feeling restlessness and anxiety. >thc has been demonstrated neurotoxic but it does't matter!
>marijuana doesn't harm IQ! > UK study does find evidence, however, of slightly impaired educational abilities among the very heaviest marijuana users. This group of students scored roughly 3% lower on school exams taken at age 16, even after adjusting for confounding factors always kek when the articles gloss over the fact that it does
>"I agree that marijuana can cause heart attacks but it doesn't matter cause relativism"
>schizophrenia can happen but this doesn't matter!
>e do know that smoking is unhealthy. And that, like tobacco, cannabis contains cancer causing substances. Therefore it would seem likely to increase cancer risk. But we need more research to know this for sure.
so pretty much everything I've said here is correct. Is it really so surprising that a substance 1) known to be neurotoxic 2) known to impair short term memory is harmful to intelligence? it ain't
>>25972158 > UK study does find evidence, however, of slightly impaired educational abilities among the very heaviest marijuana users. This group of students scored roughly 3% lower on school exams taken at age 16, even after adjusting for confounding factors.
Math is not your strong suit, I see. You might want to compare this to a study about an actual neurotoxin, like lead paint, because I assure you you'll see a difference of a lot more than 3%.
>>25971873 and the traffic could easily be traced if effort was made to do so
the distribution networks, the social networks. All these can be located and rounded up. And when the break the drug distribution does as well
>>25971879 it's a social phenomena which spreads like a disease vector through contact. Yes, culture effects consumption patterns and hedonism will increase it. I could go into details but usually this bores people
>>25972158 >implying you understand statistics You know why their test scores are lower? Because they are likely self medicating or their parents are drug dealers and their life is a fucked up hectic nightmare. Not because of the marijuana.
>>25971851 >the banks that had just thrown the country into the Depression
Yeah, cause the banks are the ones who caused a huge chunk of the midwest where millions of households made their living into a barren dust bowl. They're also the ones who decided to raise the tariff that depressed global demand for manufactured goods.
>>25971062 Basically this. I suppose they could go round up stoners. But kinda doesn't seem worth the effort, like trying to round up everyone who torrents stuff. There are more important crimes to go around preventing.
IQ of those who had smoked weed declined by an average of four points over the decade >researchers found that overall, marijuana users had lower intelligence test scores in their adult IQ tests >We cannot rule out a neurotoxic effect of long-term marijuana use, the authors caution. you cited the same study twice
>>25972583 Not even trying to argue here, but it's ignorant to gloss over the "heavy" part of the marijuana use. Self medicating and anecdotal excuses aside, it's obvious that heavy marijuana use will negatively impact a person.
>>25972639 neurologically we know pretty much every fucking thing you eat in every 1st world country is bad for you. You know what is bad for you? Having some sort of mental disorder or a terrible fucking home life, so you do drugs to escape and every day after school smoke because it calms you down from your parents screaming the ever living fuck at each other etc etc so you dont have time to study or learn anything because youre in some horrible environment. Any 16 year old who has the money to smoke heavily some 5 joints a day or some shit is probably breaking the law or doing some really fucked up shit to come up with all that money. If its a girl, shes probably sucking dick. All that environment plays a much bigger part in a person's intelligence/work/school then anything marijuana would do.
Then after that, I would think the largest impact would be from being high all the time and losing your focus and falling out of routine and losing your skills from lack of efficient practice. I mean you spend all your time being high constantly, your brain will probably prioritize on being creative and brainstorming rather then give importance to tasks that require memorization.
I mean you see the same thing happening now where people cant remember anything because they dont practice memorizing or learning new things because they can just "google it". Its not smartphones that are making people retarded because they damage your brain, but its the developed environment around it thats fucking up everything.
>>25973105 cannot rule out means its a possibility As in, I can give you $5 and tell you to go to store and get some bread but I cant rule out the possibility of you jamming it up your ass instead. Maybe you jammed it up your ass and gave it to the guy. Maybe you jammed the change up your ass. Maybe you stole the bread and kept the $5 jammed up your ass. All I know is that I have my bread now. What lead up to the point of me getting my bread and at what exactly put you might of jammed that $5 up your ass is unknown and how much of it and at what point if any you faced greatest resistance from shoving lincoln up your log hole is not something we measured but we can see the results of your actions at the end of everything.
>>25971117 Why should people have their lives ruined over something as stupid as eating strawberries? You think someone should be in prison for eating strawberries? They should be shot 12 times with an assault weapon by a swat team or heavily armed soldiers because they are sitting in their house watching Howl's Moving Castle for the 46th time eating popcorn? Prison is for people who hurt other people like drunk drivers, rapists, child molesters, bank ceos who still hundreds of millions of dollars through corrupt business practices. When you throw innocent people into prison, I and everyone else has to fucking pay for them and they just learn how to become criminals and stay that way once they get out because why the fuck should they care since their life has been ruined already. Now you have a trained violent criminal on your hands with resentment for the world who just wanted to watch anime and eat popcorn.
Stay in your country you fucking freedom hating gook.
>>25971289 Why be critical of a substance that supposedly lowers intelligence and increases lethargy if you're already a failure that's never accomplished anything of value to the rest of the world in your life.
>>25973612 your argument: >people do unhealthy things >because of that, everybody should always be unhealthy dumb. The Ironic thing is what I'm suggesting is -actually- progressive unlike the leftist reactionaries who are against prohibition these days
>>25973725 everything else I have indicated points to marijuana having a negative impact on intelligence. Give it up, 420stonedboy##cocksucker
>>25973936 because nobody here is suggesting we prohibit strawberries. We do suggest prohibiting directly harmful and addictive behaviors, and using risk mitigation for the most natural ones not associated with a particular substance. Why is it so hard to see that we benefit from limiting the spread of known harmful substances?
I'm canadian mate. Liberalism is what is killing north america
>>25974629 because we have less failures overall. It's okay to break a lot of eggs in the short term if in the long term fewer are
>>25975860 Use rate also increased in Spain and Italy nearby. Drugs became more popular in the whole region. It wasn't necessarily caused by the more liberal laws. So, that may be a confounding variable.
Also, I believe that data was collected by survey. Obviously people are more likely to stop lying on the survey once it's legal.
More importantly, drug deaths and HIV infections dropped dramatically, and many people sought treatment because there was less stigma.
Even if drug use really did increase as a result, I posit that legal drugs are still a better idea. Only idiots and the weak willed allow themselves to become addicted or dependent in a way that makes them less functional, especially in the face of all the drug education and facts out there. These people already serve little value to society whether they're sober or high. Why do you want big gubmint to protect these dregs of society? I can never understand authoritarians.
I do think it should be illegal for people under 18, some drugs under 21, because willpower and self control aren't fully developed before then. But beyond that, you're responsible for your own body. Why should we spend hundreds of billions, probably mostly coming from raised taxes, as a nanny to monitor you and make sure you're not doing something dumb?
>>25976155 you are literally not using facts right now, while I agree drug surveys are tricky if we're going into hypotheticals it's my word against yours.
for instance,if you're going to use this claim we might as well admit that decriminalization/legalization is happening in an environment of already decreasing drug and alcohol use. Which is a confounding variable in itself
Yes, we know that supervised injection centers decrease harm rates. Yes, we know that initially following decriminalization there was an initial drop in use (which was blown out of proportion and hyped despite the fact the rate has gradually increased...). However, there's no reason why good addiction control cannot be funded under prohibition. Insite has not decreased use rates... if anything, it's more of this bastardized bandaid over the problem of drug pushing in society
are drugs, hypothetically, selecting for more fit individuals? Yes, only 10% of users get physiologically addicted anyways. Is it a good idea, therefore, to allow everyone to be exposed to a shitty environment hoping for a genetic mutation to eventually rectify the problem? dumb, in the short run we'll have behavioral problems and a host of health concerns
environment control seems to me the ultimate evolution of government and a necessary (perhaps inevitable) step in our societal development. Pretending you should accept ills and a continuous vacuum towards increasing control forever is naive and stupid. If anything, we should embrace social control for a beneficial agenda before it winds up with a harmful one. It is in everyone's interest to ensure that our citizenry develops to the best of their possible talents. Physical ills are a statistical impediment
>why shouldn't I be responsible for my own body? because the concept of self-control with vices is a naive concept. It is like a basin of attraction principle- whereas some will resist reaching the set point, most arrive in varying degrees closest to the basin
>>25976486 the soviet union fell because it had an inefficient command economy and invested in heavy industry over light industry to the extent that it's satellites had to take loans from western countries just to develop consumer industries that they then had to pay back using austerity that led to political protests. In addition to the costs of playing great power military games requiring upkeep of a very expensive and large standing army ... not as a result of police forcefulness, yank
>>25975860 No you just throw words around and redefine things. Marijuana is one of the safest substances on the planet. It treats so many conditions that other pharmaceuticals can also treat albeit poorly and with more side effects and dangerous long-term exposure problems.
You want addiction, toxicity, and risk behaviors? Look at fags, alcohol, corn syrup, artificial sugars, caffeine. You just see what you want to see and close your mind to reality and actual science not pseudoscience backed by lobbyists. Any so called evidence is sketchy at best and swamped by tons of research on the contrary pointing out the incredible benefits at the risk of a possible maybe side effect which should be a choice left to an individual to evaluate their risk and benefits. But like I said youre a pathetic human being who wants his government to be his baby sitter and parent instead of the government being for the people. You make me sick cuck. Even then, nobody gives a flying fuck about Portugal or any other shit tier 3rd world country. Their corrupt government and everything else is a fucking joke and not some fucking ideal laboratory conditions experiment. Thats like deciding something because MEXICO DID IT. Nigger please.
All that happens is this. >>25970983. You stupid fucking faggot. You just want all your liberties stripped away. Treated like a fucking object? Fuck I would get drugs and fucking plant them on you and sit outside your house or whatever as the drug thought control cops came and shot an rpg into your house and firebombed it with napalm because you had $10 of weed I planted on you. I would enjoy the piercing nightmarish screams of you burning to death in the rubble of your house. Have fun when a dictator who's cock you spit shined into power slaughters your country in the millions because they claimed you had drugs. Its happened so many times before. Give someone total power and take away their liberties and guns and youll all die.
>>25977850 >totally harmless ain't. See the long list of citations I have already presented indicating to the contrary >medical uses! separate from recreational use and in many cases to my understanding also false >this laundry list of unhealthy behaviors I present thereby erases this one no >portugal doesn't count because spics did it lmao >policing a minority (20% tops) of the population is the same as repressing all of it no
>>25977850 oh also when you increase police pressure, all that happens is demand skyrockets and black market business booms
You think you can stop it? Right now there are people in las vegas and nevada risking life imprisonment moving drugs and not just any amount gets you life in prison but they are moving thousands of pills and everything else. The price of like almost pure cocaine in the silicon valley for an oz is like $2,800+. They have fucking robocops in silicon valley and surveillance cameras everywhere and hundreds of cops everywhere. Drugs still get through. Weed is small time shit. People want to move E, coke, and meth.
>>25978168 Like I said its not important. Im sorry youre so brainwashed by the "just say no" era of mind control that youve bookmarked and completely surrounded your life with any tiny fucking shred of propaganda from some shit hole country to feed into your delusions. >policing a minority youre not policing a minority, youre policing everyone you stupid fuck if people can say what you can and cant do just because then youre destroying everyone's liberty whether or not it applies to you or not at that particular moment. It opens precedence for other legislation to thought control your actions and personal freedoms. If you dont understand this youre a fucking idiot.
You are delusional and trying to solve social problems by genocide rather than social programs to fix the fucking problems in the first place.
I bet youve never even seen or touched a drug in your life but just let propoganda control your life. Weed smokers are chill and passive and uncoordinated as all fuck. They dont ever cause problems. Alcoholics or meth users are the fucking problem. You know by 2100, 1 billion fucking people will die from tobacco use.
The way i see it, anyone who smokes should be arrested for attempted suicide and their kids taken away for child abuse.
>>25978486 >black market inevitably grows no, this is a function of laxity in pressure and failures of the yank supply-side prevention policy. As long as demand is not repressed there will always be money to attract traffickers. When it is, the whole thing starts to fall apart - see the countries I have already cited for evidence of this (singapore- 5% tops use rate)
>muh big gov gonna 1984 muh life
20% of the population at maximum uses marijuana (this is being generous, the actual figure is 15%). An even smaller number uses harder drugs. Targeting users is a minority of the population. >genocide Not even relevant in this context >potsmokers aren't a problem they are. You only have to spend a short period around these types to be acutely aware of just how pathetic and underdeveloped these people are. Even the successful ones are still from a pure physiological standpoint damaging their health. There's no need for apologetics
>hey guys, smoking is bad! I agree, I would be for banning this as well. Even legal, the black market for cigarettes is massive and funds organized crime
>>25976440 >for instance,if you're going to use this claim we might as well admit that decriminalization/legalization is happening in an environment of already decreasing drug and alcohol use. Which is a confounding variable in itself That's true. It's certainly plausible drug legalization increases drug use, but I don't think there's a strong argument for it either causing increase or decrease without more longitudinal research.
>However, there's no reason why good addiction control cannot be funded under prohibition. There are many issues with combining prohibition and harm reduction. Look at sex education in the Deep South. Many drug education and treatment programs tell false or very misleading information that, above all else, tries to prevent any drug use. More deaths can occur when drug users have incorrect information.
In theory you could have both if education and treatment programs have a blanket waiver to give genuinely good advice and allow people to admit to drug use without punishment, but in reality this is not what happens.
Your arguments don't take into account the positive effects that responsible drug use can have for some people.
>It is in everyone's interest to ensure that our citizenry develops to the best of their possible talents. Physical ills are a statistical impediment I understand the point you're making, but it's not remotely practical to truly stop drug use unless you have a very authoritarian and very powerful surveillance and police state. Some Asian countries have such a state, yes, but what do you give up in return? The trade-off is not remotely worth it. Especially because responsible drug use can cause no or almost long-term physical or mental harm.
You could apply this same argument to guns. It's easy to ban guns from a place like Singapore or Japan. Not from the US.
You can reduce the harm in an environment by either going full authoritarian or full libertarian. Authoritarianism incurs much more collateral damage.
>>25978681 >they are. You only have to spend a short period around these types to be acutely aware of just how pathetic and underdeveloped these people are. Even the successful ones are still from a pure physiological standpoint damaging their health. There's no need for apologetics I'm >>25979627 and >>25976155. I don't consider myself a "pot smoker", but I use cannabis once per week, usually on Friday or Saturday, to relax and enjoy myself. I have a high-paying job in an IT field and have had it for many years. I have no long-lasting effects from the weed use.
There is no significant evidence that weed affects anyone's health in the long term. Maybe research will eventually find that some people who smoke a lot every day for years are at increased risk of memory or attention issues, but I'd be surprised if those effects didn't reverse once receptors upregulate again over time with cessation from the substance for months or years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_cannabis has a pretty good summary of all the meta-analyses. Obviously there are negative acute effects, but no known chronic effects in adults. Smoking will of course increase damage to the lungs, so does smoking anything. There are many other ways of ingesting cannabis. (I only vaporize it; never smoke).
People who consider themselves part of some "drug culture", weed or otherwise, are indeed degenerates and usually lazy and unintelligent. Many people associate mere use of /r9k/ with being a retarded bitter autist, when we know that's not universal. Everyone can gain beneficial effects from occasional recreational drug use, and you don't have to somehow "identify" with the drug or as a drug user.
>>25978681 More like most people dont smoke weed because they are brainwashed to think its like injecting heroin you included. There's also a large majority who dont smoke because its a risk to lose their job or are too socially retarded to find a hookup.
Other countries dont matter because they are filled with idiots who have like a 1st grade education mongolians vs drug dealers in the usa who can easily get around cops and surveillance and everything else. Nobody ever gets shot because 99.9999% of the drugs arent caught and the cops usually just try and bust the drug houses. The cartels make soooo much fucking money, they dont even fucking care that you destroyed something. The cartels take out the drug dealer and his family not the police. If they actually started shit like you want them too it would be met with extreme brutality. A brick of coke in the dominican republic is like $800 and if it gets to Staten Island its worth $10,000. In the DR all the cops are paid off to move the coke.
What you are talking about is inciting guerrilla warfare. Its just at a respected stalemate right now. You think the cartel doesnt have an active list of every police officer and where they live and where their family lives? It would be a fucking slaughter. Theyd roll up to the police station firing into it with fully automatic weapons and bombs. Theyd burn people's houses down and stuff. Youd have to bring in the army and special forces to over time root them out.
They dont fight though because the money is more important and its easier just to shove $2,000 in some kids face or pay for his drug habit and replace him with another one if he gets caught. All drug enforcement does is punish users who go to prison and use there and they become even more involved in the thing and probably join a gang in there or get contacts. Hell even the fucking prison pushes drugs. It doesnt solve anything Arrest all the people you want, its not going to make drugs go away or stop new users
>>25979627 the statistical evidence we have shows that legalization increases the use rate
>harm prevention is education no, it isn't. Specialized coercive intake programs for addicts are a hallmark of the singapore model. As any alternative to the (wasteful) prison model of the yanks. I'm not talking about education, which I believe has largely inflamed the entire drugs situation due to sensationalism. If anything DARE to rights should be shut down on account of this problem
>muh freedom as I've said before, it is no real threat to society at large to repress 20% of the population. This can be done quite effectively, but I do agree the infrastructure and efficiency of north American police services do have to be increased. The costs of prohibition can be shouldered through to a large part by aggressive expropriation of laundered assets. Also, I would advise a limited death penalty for dealers and reoccuring offenders to clear the prison system
>>25979895 just see my citations mate, it's harmful in just about every respect. At least you admit the culture is degenerate
>>25980780 you are basically admitting a hard drug policy discourages uses. As for the existence of gangs, this largely stems from legal measures enshrining human rights etc over police efficiency.
Cartels can eat piss mate, they have nothing on an active statist government
>>25980889 If you say so. More like >muh model works guiz because nobody gives a shit about my country
You sound like north korea telling us how great is is because nobody does drugs because you kill them if they do and nobody brings drugs into your country because its not worth their time or resources and there isnt the infrastructure nor the geographical ease for movement and grow ups. Youre a tiny fucking island with like 5 million people in it filled with snitches with iphones 2 inches away from each other where the fuck are you supposed to hide anything? Are you seriously recommending we drive tanks and shit over the 4 million square miles arresting and imprisoning or executing the like 30 million fucking people? Please tell me youre not this retarded. The US has the most people imprisoned everywhere. Its only 2 million people. Singapore is only 5 million people. You want to be 30 million more people in prison or execute them? 30 million is almost as many people who died in WW1 and half of WW2. Even if you counted every single person pretty much involved in the holocaust, its only 11 million people.
This is only the USA and you want to do this with the entire world?
>>25980889 >as I've said before, it is no real threat to society at large to repress 20% of the population. They'd have to repress everyone; that's not how mass surveillance and a police state works. Unless you think it's perfectly fine for warrantless searches and seizures of your person and property because "you're not a drug user/criminal" and have nothing to hide. That kind of governmental policy is a far greater societal ill than some people using drugs.
>a limited death penalty for dealers and reoccuring offenders to clear the prison system The punishment doesn't fit the crime. Even if it might be a semi-effective policy to enforce drug prohibition, it's just not a fair punishment. Drug use does not cause enough harm to society to justify such severe violation of human rights, even if it could be a practical solution.
>>25980889 >cannabis causes brain damage!! You linked a bunch of shitty news site targeted towards retards. You did not link any real research papers or meta-analyses. The Wikipedia article provides a much more balanced view of both sides, without any leftist bias I can discern.
The only maybe-true part is IQ of adolescent users. Age limit of 21 and enforcing the limit harshly, along with proper education, is an appropriate remedy.
The culture is degenerate, but so are tons of other cultures and sub-cultures. Doesn't mean the government should ban them.
>The costs of prohibition can be shouldered through to a large part by aggressive expropriation of laundered assets. Look at what happened with alcohol prohibition. Look at what's happening in Colorado and Washington with cannabis taxation. Legalization is way more net-profitable in so many ways. Taxes, reduced police and corrections costs, reduced medical costs and medical incidents.
Authoritarians who post on an imageboard built around free speech and personal libertarianism without seeing the irony in it always amuse me. In your fantasy world, we couldn't even have this discussion.
>>25981328 north korea actually has a large meth problem and cannabis is not illegal. The more you know
>drive tanks and shit no, you increase the police presence and alter many of the existing statues involving personal liberties. It's not necessary to execute 30 million people, only the hard core of agitators and dealers who are scum anyways. the rest can be effectively repressed >genocide this is not an targeted attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic population...
>>25981380 20% of the population uses drugs.This is the group being targeted- their activities are entirely by network and may be broken into by the means I have already indicated in the first post. Surveillance of the entire population? Yes, to an extent. This is not a particularly bad thing
>execution of drug dealers is a bad idea they are a tiny fraction of the using population, generally members or organized crime, and statistically speaking pieces of shit. By killing dealers we keep prison population problems in containment and hope to intimidate moderates into dropping the profession
>none of the citations are correct 'cause news they're all linked to legitimate studies and I have countered every single "critique" presented ITT. so far as I am concerned every single point stands
>legalization creates magic money no. This money is actually already in the economy, the only difference is that there is a higher proportion being taxed. Society at large benefits from a more effectively managed police force, and it is an illusion to say that legalization has actually increased sources of real economic output. And as for it's "effectiveness", see the statistics on portugal. It's exactly the same as what happened with the legalization of prostitution in germany - as the vice market expands, so does the demand. In germany this has led to increased human trafficking, for drugs it is a higher harm rate. A waste considering the problems
>>25982458 >alter many of the existing statues involving personal liberties See remove all human rights and throw your constitution in the garbage and become a dictatorship
again see >>25981328 portugal is not fucking anything like any other part of the world. your cuck dick sucking would be fucking laughed at. Like I said in the other post. Have fun with your mind control society and having your life ruined when somebody sets you up the bomb.
>the hard core of agitators and dealers who are scum anyways Most of these people's families are held hostage. Most of the "drug dealers" are higher ups who dont even touch the shit. They basically are a guy who tells people what to do and receives and makes phone calls. All the street dealers are kids or users being pimped out as mules.
>Surveillance of the entire population >Not a particularly bad thing Have fun when your shit gets hacked and you and everyone elses naked bodies and things are released on the internet for everyone else to all laugh at you. Or any of the horrible things hackers could do with all these systems to infiltrate and fuck with.
>by killing dealers we keep prison population problems in containment and hope to intimidate moderates into dropping the profession NOPE All you do is up the ante. Drive prices up. The cartels instead of giving a guy a glock give him an mp7 and what used to be a simple arrest, he is now ordered on threat of his family's life that if any cop at all fucks with him hes to murder them and any witnesses and secure the product AT ALL COSTS. Maybe this would work if we had a giant fucking robot police force >inb4 shot through the window of your bedroom at night with a suppressed fully automatic .22 gatling robot gun because you littered accidentally because a breeze knocked your gum wrapper into the air so you deserve to die for it "NO PLEASE DONT KILL ME THE WIND IT CAME AND BLEW THE PAPER OUT OF MY HAND! PLEASE ROBOT MOMMY JESUS DONT PLEASE FORGIVE ME"
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.