Four downvotes and counting, no obvious reasons for them, and no reasons given either. Well... aside from the organized vote manipulation scheme that goes without saying. Don't believe it? Check your reputation scores. Notice anything?
If you'd gone to the page for the snap, and then hit the downvote arrow, a reddish button would've shown up next to it. Hitting that 'Reason' button would've let you indicate that you'd downvoted it for being bullshit. If you had, then it might've made some small measure of sense to the person that posted it. Or to anyone that cared to check.
I mean, not in this case, because apparently you think cannabis itself has somehow been slighted because the writer used a given hook on this story. So you're rising to defend cannabis's honor against the, to you, unwarranted suggestion that drug cartels losing money on one vice might ever look to make it back on another. As if cannabis was being slandered in some way by the notion of profit seeking by criminal gangs in a prohibition economy. Because your downvote defends weed's good name, you figured, apparently. Hophead.
That's your opinion, but at least you had an opinion. However specious. if you'd given a reason for your downvote it would've conveyed something more than the unreasoning downvotes bought, paid for and seen here. Or did you spring for those out-of-pocket?
Four downvotes and counting, no obvious reasons for them, and no reasons given either. Well... aside from the organized vote manipulation scheme that goes without saying. Don't believe it? Check your reputation scores. Notice anything?
Wow, how enterprising.
It didn't give me an option to give a reason. My reason is that the article is bullshit.
If you'd gone to the page for the snap, and then hit the downvote arrow, a reddish button would've shown up next to it. Hitting that 'Reason' button would've let you indicate that you'd downvoted it for being bullshit. If you had, then it might've made some small measure of sense to the person that posted it. Or to anyone that cared to check.
I mean, not in this case, because apparently you think cannabis itself has somehow been slighted because the writer used a given hook on this story. So you're rising to defend cannabis's honor against the, to you, unwarranted suggestion that drug cartels losing money on one vice might ever look to make it back on another. As if cannabis was being slandered in some way by the notion of profit seeking by criminal gangs in a prohibition economy. Because your downvote defends weed's good name, you figured, apparently. Hophead.
That's your opinion, but at least you had an opinion. However specious. if you'd given a reason for your downvote it would've conveyed something more than the unreasoning downvotes bought, paid for and seen here. Or did you spring for those out-of-pocket?