Why is there no ?drugs? board/

Honestly. Most loungers are straight edge kids who think that one puff from a joint will kill you, and one line of meth will turn you into a raping werewolf who goes around and rapes gingerbread men with his tiny one inch dick and then steals your tv. Yet we discuss drugs constantly, which are always filled with annoying trolls trying to preach to us that drugs are bad. Given the personalities on this board, /lounge/ isn't exactly the best place to have serious discussion on drugs.

Now, you are probably thinking "Why?". When you should be thinking: "Why not?". Think about it, textboards take up little to no space as it is all just textfiles and php pages. You are not bloating up the server to add one extra board, and even if it isn't the most active board it would still probably beat other boards on this site such as ?carcom? and ?tele?.

What other drug textboards are there? I believe there is a drug board in 2ch, however it is all in nipnog language and I can not understand it. 420chan used to be a cool place to discuss drugs, but it has turned a little bit too much like 4chan for my tastes. I think a ?drug? board would be a FANTASTIC addition to world4ch.

Please consider my request, even though nobody important will ever read this.

Happy druggin"1

>>13

Firstly, Sagan wasn't a theoretical physicist. He didn't need his mind all that much.

His ideas aren't by any means original; science fiction had existed long before he started publicising the romance of science. Don't get me wrong, however. I thoroughly enjoy his style and even thought Contact was a good read. But do you really think he revealed anything that the average layman could have read in any little paperback gem from the likes of Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov or Pohl, to name a few? Said layman would never pick up one of these books whose covers alone crazily illustrate some faraway fantasy. Sagan is, in short, accessible.

I find it humorous that not only did you not explain for me any of the supposed effects induced by pot smoking which would make one an instant Carl Sagan, you also saw fit to cite an entire book in order to get your point across, rather than any of its possible excerpts. And a little evidence would be nice, but in this case I'd even accept a rehashing of what you may have picked up from your own experience.

But that's probably too much to ask, seeing as how nearly every stoner on the planet seems to instantly lose whatever inclination towards structured introversion they had to begin with.

Your move.