Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Marijuana: Prohibition failing; legalizing could be tax boon
rrstar.com — Are people really afraid of legalizing marijuana? I cannot understand why it is such a crazy idea to let people consume cannabis. People can get drunk all they want, and humanity keeps moving right along.
Tomboys- 2778 diggs
- digg it
- m00kie, on 01/08/2008, -151/+21Dude, you can tell totally tell when someone has smoked weed for a couple of years, dudes.
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -8/+9Actually, if you read the article carefully, you can see where he finally tokes up. For the first few paragraphs he doesn't use any apostrophes/contractions. He's being very anal. Then it changes and that's where he stopped, packed a bowl and lit it up. He's high for the rest of the article.
- Ineedanap, on 01/08/2008, -6/+88No, you cant always tell. I know many people who are occasional to daily users and they have not changed any more than would be expected over 2 years. Fact is, there are millions of responsible, intelligent, cogent adults who toke daily and you would never know it.
- consoneo, on 01/08/2008, -3/+23Carl Sagan to name one..
- 11b1p, on 01/08/2008, -38/+6I'll see your millions of responsible users and raise you tens of millions of irresponsible users.
- offspring06, on 01/08/2008, -3/+34Did I just see you pull those numbers out of your ass? Now tell me what percentage of alcohol drinkers are responsible and what percentage are irresponsible people. Did you ever see a bar full of potheads start a brawl?
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -3/+20"Did I just see you pull those numbers out of your ass?"
Yeah - I saw it too. - 11b1p, on 01/08/2008, -25/+4Oh now you have to compare apples to oranges. You know what there are always gonna be irresponsible users that will ruin it for you. Now I'll just be a dick and say it MARIJUANA will never be legalized in the US. How about we say you own a trucking company two guys apply, equal skills and records one tests positive in your company screening, even if pot was legal. who would you give the job to? You will see a whole new level of discrimination come down with the legalization of it.
Even without a test you know how they are gonna find out you do it. Cause pot heads like to talk about it, at length. Just like smokers can't smell the smoke on them people are gonna know, and there are gonna put you down for it. Alcohol is bad enough, Cigarettes are bad enough, I'm not gonna pay more for health care and other related expense that will come when you guys decide to smoke marijuana like people smoke cigarettes today.
So you are doomed, it will never legal, give up.- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/08/2008, -3/+16Please cite catastrophic events that happened because someone was using marijuana "irresponsibly".
Also, if used with a vaporizer all health risks of marijuana (aside from unearthing a schizophrenic tendency that was lying dormant and could have been triggered another way anyhow, or high blood pressure risks) are dissipated. - eviltandem, on 01/08/2008, -3/+13Right, because it's soooo hard to get now. This is EXACTLY like the whole DRM music debacle. It already exists. I can go outside and buy pot in any major city in the US within 20 minutes if I know where to go. Less if it's a bigger city.
You are completely delusional. It already exists. It's already available. It's already part of our health system. We just don't talk about it. That's not the same as it not existing.
Sticking your finger in your ears and screaming, "I'M NOT LISTENING" is not an adult response to the issue; namely: what gives you the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in my own home? It sure isn't the constitution. - solistus, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5Some businesses discriminate against cannabis users now. Other, more successful businesses, particularly in IT, realise that this is stupid. There are no increased costs associated with cannabis using employees, provided they are sober on the job, and many are extremely talented workers who your competitors would be more than happy to snatch up.
- heypetray, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5"So you are doomed, it will never legal, give up."
You're Hilarious. Watch Reefer Madness. - tech42er, on 01/09/2008, -1/+111b1p, it's not discrimination. It makes perfect sense that some people will not hire marijuana users, but that doesn;t mean the government should throw marijuana users in jail. How the ***** are the two related? Smoking marijuana is a choice to be made by the individual and the government should have no say in it.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/08/2008, -3/+16Please cite catastrophic events that happened because someone was using marijuana "irresponsibly".
- dawhitie, on 01/08/2008, -4/+11"it will never legal"? Are you high or just stupid?
- nicktheawesome, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4Dugg for South Park reference.
- 11b1p, on 01/08/2008, -14/+2grammar police
- Bakrain, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Forgive me, an extra "s" can tend to ruin a person's day. Perhaps if you would capitalize your "g" and end your sentence with a period your witty comment would blossom with diggs.
- Bakrain, on 01/08/2008, -1/+16http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5337a2. ...
It appears that alcohol is already WAY ahead of marijuana with respects to fatalities. - danarama, on 01/08/2008, -2/+7marajuana mania! ...it turns people into psychopathic freaks!!! run away!!!!! some of them are building nukes and eating children!!!!!!!!
- heypetray, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3http://www.reefermadness.org/propaganda/kidax.html
- pcpimpster, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9I do it everyday and most people are shocked if/when i tell them i do it.
Then i spark up with my new friend.
- Herostratus, on 01/08/2008, -8/+60I know a married couple of college professors who smoke on a regular basis and they are 2 of the most interesting people I have ever known (and I've known many) for example the last time I went over there he had just finished building a 5 foot Tesla coil and man that thing looked killer. Not to mention their culinary, botanical and conversational prowesses.
You can't stereotype anyone. Even stoners. If you do, you are the one being ignorant.- mlvassallo, on 01/08/2008, -24/+6Yes, everybody know a couple of interesting people who abuse a drug. It doesn't change the fact that my neighbor sells the stuff and hasn't changed his shirt in 3 years.
- naterpoke, on 01/08/2008, -3/+16you're fat, there's a difference between use and abuse
- consoneo, on 01/08/2008, -3/+28I'd say nothing changes the fact that your neighbor would be a loser with or without marijuana... he just has no ambition.
- offspring06, on 01/08/2008, -6/+2Is Homer Simpson your neighbour?
- eviltandem, on 01/08/2008, -1/+19Yes, everybody know(s) a couple of interesting people who eat food. it doesn't change the fact that my neighbor weighs 400 lbs and can hardly walk down the street.
Wait, wait ,wait... You mean we can't base the value of things based on how any particular person uses them? Blasphemy! My next door neighbor is all I need to know about when it comes to my view on "eaters".
Critical thinker this one. - danarama, on 01/08/2008, -1/+8and weed made him not change his shirt?
- nicktheawesome, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6The closest stretch I can see; is weed gave him a job that he could run out of his home and therefore would be able to not need to change his shirt for three years.
If it were legal, he wouldn't have a business, be forced to get a real job, and have to change his shirt.
- nicktheawesome, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6The closest stretch I can see; is weed gave him a job that he could run out of his home and therefore would be able to not need to change his shirt for three years.
- TruthforAll, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Cause everything that happens in your little bubble is the only true reality, right?
- gropo, on 01/08/2008, -1/+12Particularly the culinary skills ;D Carl Sagan himself regularly smoked, and expressed the fact that translating his cannabis-enhanced thoughts in to properly conveyed statements was some of the most difficult work he ever did.
Would Hemingway have been Hemingway if it wasn't for his love of the bottle? People who assume everyone is affected by particular altered states in the same manner are really quite ignorant. - 5urr3al5am, on 01/08/2008, -8/+3college professors? wow who would have known? does the guy look like John Lennon and the women have long straight hair and look like sally struthers from All in the family or the wife from Welcome back Kotter...lol
- mlvassallo, on 01/08/2008, -24/+6Yes, everybody know a couple of interesting people who abuse a drug. It doesn't change the fact that my neighbor sells the stuff and hasn't changed his shirt in 3 years.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -8/+35Dude you can always tell people who have been ignorant for years, stereotype, dudes..
- koicho, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Isn't it a lot worse in the case of the legalized alcohol?!?
- halobender, on 01/08/2008, -7/+18M00kie you've never smoked weed have you? just admit you don't know what you are talking about.
- 5urr3al5am, on 01/08/2008, -11/+2halobender -- you've never lived in the real world .. so maybe you should not try to talk about it -- pretentious dw
- Luizzle, on 01/08/2008, -13/+12About half the nation's youth gets their news from a couple of stoners.. (Jon and friends)
- tech42er, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I doubt that's a coincidence.
- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -6/+21I think you are mistaking natural stupidity for the myth of pot induced stupidity. They few people I know who often get labeled as pot heads just based on their airheadedness have been like that before they ever started toking.
- pkonink, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7LOL! I was one of them. I was first accused of being a stoner when I was 12 years old and I didn't even know what marijuana was. I had no idea what the teacher was even talking about.
- jotatmo, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1that's hilarious
- pkonink, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7LOL! I was one of them. I was first accused of being a stoner when I was 12 years old and I didn't even know what marijuana was. I had no idea what the teacher was even talking about.
- jesuswuzanalien, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9I take a hit
And watch time fly
I smell that broccoli
As I pass by- aclockwork3, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I see the smoke
Grab the glass
Take a toke
***** that's cashed.
- aclockwork3, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I see the smoke
- mountvale, on 01/09/2008, -3/+0You can also "tell totally tell" when someone is smoking while they comment on DIGG.
Dude. - skyfire1, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah, most of the time they don't act like mindless zombies waiting for their next raise.
- ZxEfR, on 01/08/2008, -14/+76Very well written....clear precise and to the point. Great article!
- JasonMaloney101, on 01/08/2008, -3/+91Would buy from again. A+++++++++++++!!
- Dustmuffins, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1Ebay :rolleyes:
- dewyjuhl, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4hey guys! look! He totally figured out that joke and is so much cooler than the person that wrote it! and he figured out the joke!
- LeeSoong, on 01/09/2008, -8/+1Any Drug Use = Natural Selection in action.
Just Say NO, thank you!
Even if it doesn't end in a DUI / Crash / Busted for Drugs,
people are wasting resources on recreational chemicals -
time & money that could be used for greater benefit, improving the lives of sons & daughters,
better standard of living, investing for the future, etc.
'Winners Don't Do Drugs.'- Quag, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5You type like you drink a lot of coffee.
- Dustmuffins, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1Ebay :rolleyes:
- izlander, on 01/08/2008, -7/+8He addressed the problem of people driving while under the influence but never proposed a solution. That's probably because there isn't one (I've heard of) that could get you off the road immediately. I think this is the only problem with legalizing marijuana. If you are baked out of your mind and driving a cop can do what? On the flip side... do you want a police officer to be able to put you under arrest for suspision of marijuana use? What would be a legal limit? How do you find out if they have exceeded it? It's one problem... but it's one very large problem from a legal standpoint.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -3/+231) Marijuana is not nearly as bad as alcohol when it comes to driving. Experience, and studies, shows that people intoxicated with marijuana overestimate the extent to which they are intoxicated, and exercise caution, while people intoxicated with alcohol underestimate their intoxication, and believe they are less impaired than they are.
2) It is wrong to punish responsible users in an attempt (and a futile attempt at that - it isn't working) to stop irresponsible use.- ChaosMotor, on 01/08/2008, -1/+13The NHTSA study that I read stated that while cannabis had a moderate effect on driving, it did not impair subjects as much as merely being tired, and most of the impairment resulted in driving slower and more cautiously. Not that you should drive while toking, but it's not even in the same ballpark as alcohol.
- Lythium, on 01/08/2008, -1/+8"most of the impairment resulted in driving slower and more cautiously" - Reminds me of the story my hubby always tells about a couple of his stoner buddies getting pulled over by a cop for driving as a horrifying seven (7) miles an hour. Yup, way more dangerous than the drunks pulling 70 mph on the same roads.
- Perno, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I've smoked pot less than a dozen times in my less than 30 years of life, and the one time I drove a car back to my dorm while high, I was MUCH more altered than any of the handful of times I've stupidly driven while inebriated.
P.S. I wouldn't blow this guy over writing a "well written" article, as said elsewhere, this needs to be in the hands of public officials and not just being read by us geeks.
- ChaosMotor, on 01/08/2008, -1/+13The NHTSA study that I read stated that while cannabis had a moderate effect on driving, it did not impair subjects as much as merely being tired, and most of the impairment resulted in driving slower and more cautiously. Not that you should drive while toking, but it's not even in the same ballpark as alcohol.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/08/2008, -1/+14Police can retain you or remove you from your vehicle if you appear to not be in a decent condition to drive safely in order to protect other drivers and prevent an accident. That applies to people falling asleep at the wheel and being pulled over for swerving.
If you're too stoned to drive and decide to anyway and can't handle your car they can get you on reckless endangerment.- izlander, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0What if you are just a bad driver? If there is not an effective test method, they could just arrest you on charges of suspicion of marijuana use.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/11/2008, -0/+2Then you shouldn't be on the road and can still be charged with recklessness, you don't even need to bring weed suspicion into it. would you want someone smashing into your car because they were sober and a bad driver? It is in fact illegal to drive recklessly in any circumstances. Everyone always ***** themselves about what if weed was legal everyone would be stoned all the time and some stupid *****. A lot of smokers are responsible enough to keep themselves in check. Just because I could go to work high and be high all day doesn't necessarily mean I'd want to or want to operate a vehicle if I chose to.
- izlander, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0What if you are just a bad driver? If there is not an effective test method, they could just arrest you on charges of suspicion of marijuana use.
- oxdeltaxo, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4"He addressed the problem of people driving while under the influence but never proposed a solution."
Got any ideas yourself on how to reduce impaired driving?
Your right it is wrong to drive while impaired. But this does not mean marijuana is the only thing which can impair judgment, alcohol can do much worse as nepawoods said above. It's about making a good judgment in either case.- ttotheatothstey, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1thankyou for finaly being realistic
- thetedster180, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6have you never heard of a field sobriety test?
- izlander, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0I've passed a field sobriety test both baked and drunk. Have YOU ever taken one?
- cornswalled, on 01/08/2008, -2/+5I'm against legalized pot, but cops already have options for dealing with this. If you're driving in a manner they deem dangerous you get arrested for "Driving under the influence." It's how they arrest driving crack smokers without a breath test for crack.
- izlander, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0If I'm not mistaken, aren't there chemical tests that can be done on the spot for crack when used?
I'm not 100% sure on that though.
- izlander, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0If I'm not mistaken, aren't there chemical tests that can be done on the spot for crack when used?
- jimmycurN, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1The police can totally tell when you're baked.
- izlander, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Not always
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -3/+231) Marijuana is not nearly as bad as alcohol when it comes to driving. Experience, and studies, shows that people intoxicated with marijuana overestimate the extent to which they are intoxicated, and exercise caution, while people intoxicated with alcohol underestimate their intoxication, and believe they are less impaired than they are.
- AgentOmega, on 01/08/2008, -1/+13The real problem is that there are two problems that are treated as one.
how to "catch" people who are driving is a legal concern ENTIRELY separate from the legalization of the substance itself
they didn't have breathalysers in every cop car when they repealed prohibition. Obviously drinking and driving was a serious concern back then... Field sobriety tests work, not as well as technology of course but well enough.
besides necessity is the mother of invention. If cannabis were legal tomorrow then there would be a need for a test to determine if a driver is impaired in addition researchers could work on the problem without having to get a load of government permissions to conduct the research in the first place making it actually worthwhile to conduct said research.- Lythium, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4"there would be a need for a test to determine if a driver is impaired" - Easy, just dangle a can of Pringles in front of the driver's face and gauge the reaction ;)
- rageguy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Mmmmm, pringles.
Doh@!
- rageguy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Mmmmm, pringles.
- Lythium, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4"there would be a need for a test to determine if a driver is impaired" - Easy, just dangle a can of Pringles in front of the driver's face and gauge the reaction ;)
- danarama, on 01/08/2008, -4/+7Screw this taxing BS, the point of legalising is to clean up the legal system and keep normal innocent people from jail and penalties. People are going to grow and sell it BY THEMSELVES anyway. Taxing is a government and big business ploy, the money just goes into their pockets. Don't buy that excuse keep marajuana FREE!
"Cannabis users are probably the only segment of the population that actually wants higher taxes!" What the ***** does this mean?- cornswalled, on 01/08/2008, -1/+9It means they'd rather pay taxes on quality controlled pot than continue risking jail for toking up.
- danarama, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3The quality is controlled, marajuana growers are responsble and listen to their market like any other business. Problem is it's an underground market...but I guess if people were capable of bringing their fresh crop to a an actual market to sell someone's going to wonder why it gets treated differently then any other form of organic product. How are locally grown vegitables taxed? How is home brew taxed? I just don't see it working like a give and take senario, marajuana users arn't negotiating with the government, like legalize it but it's alright to tax it. Just ***** legalize it and work it into the system like any other thing. Some of it might be taxed if it's sold commercially, or if you're a dealer/grower you might have to pay income tax. BUt marajuana itself should not be taxified.
- ryllharu, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1Taxation is the only way you'd ever get the government to approve legalization. There needs to be some incentive for them to go through with changing the legislation (by getting revenue), and it also allows them to regulate it safely for consumers (by licensing growers and inspecting it for purity/tampering/quality).
- danarama, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1sure but i'm saying how do you tax it? it's not that simple. tax it if you're making an income or running business...but it woud just make more people grow their own so you can't tax it, can't arrest me. BUt...if government were pushy enough ... they'd start raiding people's home's and grow ops in the name of tax evasion or something. think about it.
- Phrag, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Why do people pay over $50 a gram for it in some places now? Its because they don't want to grow it, can't grow it and/or don't know how to grow it. Those are the same reasons that people would go to the store and buy it, taxed or not. If it is legal to sell with a license, they can still arrest you for selling without a license and sue you for tax evasion. This would not be worth the risk if people could sell it legally with taxes and still make a decent profit.
- danarama, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1sure but i'm saying how do you tax it? it's not that simple. tax it if you're making an income or running business...but it woud just make more people grow their own so you can't tax it, can't arrest me. BUt...if government were pushy enough ... they'd start raiding people's home's and grow ops in the name of tax evasion or something. think about it.
- isuisorisuaint, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2these articles that continue to pop up on digg aren't going to amount to a hill of beans until people who make decisions view them.
- anselm83, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2You have shockingly low standards for what counts as "very well written" and a "great article."
- wishninja, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2well if you want an article about legalizing on the digg front page it is well written. I want legalization I do not care about grammar and writing it is the message that counts.
- JasonMaloney101, on 01/08/2008, -3/+91Would buy from again. A+++++++++++++!!
- lancifer, on 01/08/2008, -70/+8Any idiot who paid a tax on a plant is probably not smart enough to smoke cannabis on occasion.
- afdlips, on 01/08/2008, -6/+20Any idiot who posts comments before revising is probably not smart enough to use digg.
- ArTiFeXx, on 01/08/2008, -4/+59So cigarette smokers aren't smart enough to smoke weed??? cause i mean, i believe tobacco is a plant. How bout people who buy coffee. The actual drink comes from a plant so in a sense they are taxed for a plant, they must be morons to. Im not claiming to be the brightest man on digg, but you my friend, are an idiot.
- ChaosMotor, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7Hell, his statement denigrates anyone who has paid sales taxes on groceries.
- Lythium, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Well, we _did_ throw a revolution (ostensibly) over a tea tax, so at least he has a historical precedent ;)
- dewyjuhl, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1and double anyone who paid cash!
- ChaosMotor, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7Hell, his statement denigrates anyone who has paid sales taxes on groceries.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -12/+33I agree completely. "Let's legalize it and let government tax the ***** ***** out of it". No thanks.
Legalize it. Completely. Let people grow their own. No taxes.- vibrokatana, on 01/08/2008, -2/+12Well even with taxes it would probably be cheaper then paying people to smuggle it in. I don't smoke though so I could be wrong.
- NoCt1, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3depends on how they tax it.
- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Like they do any other agricultural product.
- dawhitie, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4It more than likely be taxed like alcohol and tobacco, with an added in tax and a sales tax. That way people don't realizes how much they are paying in just tax.
- ChaosMotor, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3The reasonable way to do it is to tax anything sold in stores, prohibit non-retail sales, and allow people to grow their own freely. That way, you can pay taxes to purchase it, or grow your own, or obtain it FREE from someone who grows it. Of course, some people will ignore the non-retail sale prohibition but people will always violate laws, there's no getting away from that.
- NoCt1, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3depends on how they tax it.
- MISDIREK7ED, on 01/08/2008, -3/+18Uh.. that approach won't really help the cause. Taxing it, or at least saying we will tax it, helps our argument to the older conservatives who only care about the country's bottom line.
Plus, who the hell wants to go through all the trouble of growing their own, when I can just walk up to my local 7/11 and grab a few grams and a Slurpie?- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -1/+18Weed AND munchies sold in the same place? SOLD!
- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/08/2008, -2/+8If that ***** happens I'm opening a 420 mart.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -1/+8"who the hell wants to go through all the trouble of growing their own"
Anyone who wants to control the quality themselves, or anyone who thinks tossing a few seeds on the ground is actually less trouble than spending cash all the time. - beve54, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2@ nepawoods
By that argument, I would assume there would be some people who would grow their own tobacco (unless there are laws against it that I am unaware of). And maybe there are people who do. But I've never met one.- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Tobacco isn't as easy to grow. People grow their own tomatoes. Marijuana is easier than that, and the yield is higher (in that I can grow a years supply of weed in much less space than a years supply of tomatoes).
- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -1/+18Weed AND munchies sold in the same place? SOLD!
- BoneheadFarker, on 01/08/2008, -2/+21Even if they taxed it to be the same price I pay now, I'd still rather pay the government to let me buy it in a store and then leave me alone. It's a much better prospect then risking arrest and paying money to people who I know are into other things...
- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7I don't get why you got dugg dopwn. you are 100% correct.
- Rahodeb, on 01/08/2008, -1/+20If it's legalized, it's going to be just like anything else. Sure, you can grow it yourself, or you can buy it and it will be taxed. Most people will opt for buying it from a store because they can't keep a plant alive to save their life.
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Exactly. Growing for personal use won't be taxed because the enforcement of the tax would be unreasonable. It would be wholesale and retail sales that would get taxed.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7Name any product in america that isnt taxed
- jgzman, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Growing Plants that can be used for food. If I buy a tomato plant, (roots, ball of dirt, etc. live and growing) there are no taxes. A tomato is taxed because it's not growing, and a Pine Tree is taxed because it's not food.
- MacEnvy, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3Capital gains.
- oldhick, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Not a product smart guy.
- MacEnvy, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3@oldhick
It may not be a commodity, but it is definitely a product.
define:'Product'
-a consequence of someone's efforts or of a particular set of circumstances; "skill is the product of hours of practice"; "his reaction was the product of hunger and fatigue"
- bunit03057, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5No sales tax in New Hampshire.
- Lythium, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Yep, and some states don't have tax on food, clothing, and other items considered "essential" - sales taxation is regulated at the state level.
- joosebuck, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1yeah because the government is nothing like a cartel in terms of responsible money use. e.g. not financing war mongering dictators.
- vibrokatana, on 01/08/2008, -2/+12Well even with taxes it would probably be cheaper then paying people to smuggle it in. I don't smoke though so I could be wrong.
- aoru, on 01/08/2008, -1/+26Yeah, screw all those stupid people that buy fruits and vegetables at the grocery store.
- anononon, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3You pay taxes on produce?
- popfrogs, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5He may not be from Texas. I think different states have different taxes regarding produce and other groceries.
- Lythium, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Yes, they do - and not just groceries. As I wrote above, sales taxes are determined at the state level: what is taxed, as well as the tax rate. That's why NY state residents sometimes come to NJ for large purchases (the standard sales tax rate is just under 9% in NY, and somewhere around 6% in NJ).
- popfrogs, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5He may not be from Texas. I think different states have different taxes regarding produce and other groceries.
- anononon, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3You pay taxes on produce?
- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6If I were a vegetarian I'd be insulted.
- Paradoxymoron, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0No tax on unprepared food my friend...
- Emused, on 01/08/2008, -10/+42As has been said already "Very well written,".It would be nice if this got in front of some of these hard liners for prohibition.
- xlneoMAXlx, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4"After all, this is a free country, right?"
- sHockz, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5You know what would be nice?
Get rid of IRS, give income tax back to people
Tax Marijuana, release people in jail sucking funds for petty marijuana charges
implement fair tax plan
bring troops home
And this all equals =
less spending, less direct taxation on the people, the legalization of a drug that should be initially legal, regulation of the government, and a balanced budget.
gg politics- t3soro, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2better idea: repeal 16th amendment so there is no direct federal taxation of the people, and have washington collect from each state govt instead.
- solistus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1It's a decent enough article, but there are far better policy documents that I'd like to see the hardliners read. This is a short opinion piece, not a serious policy analysis.
- KingCook, on 01/08/2008, -13/+84Growing at home ! That is the pharmaindustry's worst nightmare once people discover the real healing abilities of the plant they are going to lose a lot of money.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -3/+29And growing at home goes against the articles "let government tax it and control it" position.
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -13/+2Not really. People need a licence to drive, why not licence people to grow and distribute marijuana?
That's how I'd do it. Taxing it at point-of-sale is not really your main way of doing it since it can be grown so easily. I don't know why we don't tax people who make their own beer and wine at home. We ought to tax all of that instead of shifting the burden onto retail shoppers.- Zarokima, on 01/08/2008, -1/+17A license to garden?
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2Yeah, not really. Last time I checked, tomatoes are not controlled substances.
- Starflyer59, on 01/08/2008, -0/+13Actually some states require permits to brew beer. Other states have rules that limit the total volume allowed to be brewed before excise taxes would apply. I believe it might be around 50 Gallons where I live.
- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Then we have the liquor license.
- mugsoh, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Most states follow federal guidelines of 100 gallons for an individual and 200 gallons per household if more than 2 adults live there. And most states do not require licenses for that amount. You are not allowed to sell it, but you may give it away to acquaintances.
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Yet if we're going to "tax the ***** out of it" like the pro-legalisation/pro-tax argument goes, you would not have a viable tax system if massive quantities could be given away. Excise taxes, but it's also a controlled substance.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4"People need a licence to drive, why not licence people to grow and distribute marijuana?"
Driving is done on roadways built, maintained and shared by other taxpayers, and if you not regulated people die.
Anyone should be able to grow weed, and sell it at a roadside stand like farmers do corn or melons. That's the only way to keep it safe.- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1Anyone should be able to do electrical repair work, totally unregulated. That's the only way to keep it safe. Screw licenced/trained electricians!
What?
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1Anyone should be able to do electrical repair work, totally unregulated. That's the only way to keep it safe. Screw licenced/trained electricians!
- Herostratus, on 01/08/2008, -1/+7Why get a license for anything? Did you all forget that the US is supposed to be the land of the free. Do any of you even know what that word means anymore?
free: adj 1. Without obligation. 2 The state of being in which one is able to make ones own decisions and to gain or lose accordingly to those decisions without outside interference. 3. able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint; "free enterprise"; "a free port"; "a free country"; "I have an hour free"; "free will"; "free of racism"; "feel free to stay as long as you wish"; "a free choice"
(1 and 2 are mine, 3 is googles webster is here http://www.webster.com/dictionary/free)- norman619, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3The kind of freedom you are looking for is an illusion. We will always have freedom with limitations. True freedom is just anarchy. I bet you also think we are a democracy. We are not. Re are a representative republic. True democracy is mob rule.
- republicker, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3your gonna need a license to use that "free" dictionary b4 too long.
- bastardoperator, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Norman...
Actually the US is a representative democracy which equates to the actual definition of republic and vice versa. While not a Pure and or Direct democracy, the US can be considered both a republic and a democracy via popular sovereignty. - smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Because "taxed" inherently implies NOT FREE.
If people want to legalise marijuana, the logic is that it can be taxed. That is not "free" as you put it. If people grow it at home, they are circumventing the tax system they are trumpeting. I choose to believe pro-legalisation people are not all liars and actually want to pay their taxes and have their marijuana regulated in a manner equivalent to how responsible of a pot smoker they are.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4"I don't know why we don't tax people who make their own beer and wine at home."
Why SHOULD we??? Just because we can, maybe? Why not just tax people for waking up in the morning?- jpmoney03, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Also I pay taxes when I buy the grain, hops, yeast and equipment to make my own beer. Why should I be taxed for letting a natural process occur.
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Taxes are usually imposed on commerce because the government regulates commerce and uses some of those taxes to support the infrastructure and system that allows the commerce to happen. If I am growing for personal use, then there is no commerce, no government over sight and no reason for me to pay the government since they aren't doing anything.
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Then your argument for taxing marijuana is worthless since you are shifting the tax burden unfairly to people who don't grow. And if everyone grows there is no tax benefit, negating the point of legalising it for tax revenue. You are the only response I am Digging down since you truly did not read my post at all.
- Phrag, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1Actually I did read your comment and that is why I explained that taxing at the point of sale is fair because the government plays a role in you being able to buy products from businesses. Taxing at the point of sale does not unfairly shift any burden onto people because no one is forcing them to buy pot. If you don't want to pay the pot tax, then don't buy pot at the store. If you really think it is realistic to assume that everyone would grow their own weed if it was legalized, then I would guess that you have never tried to grow pot while living in a city.
- Zarokima, on 01/08/2008, -1/+17A license to garden?
- floorman56, on 01/08/2008, -2/+8And growing at home goes against the articles "let government tax it and control it" position
Really every time some one says that you need to ask yourself a question
Are you OK with the BATF kicking in your door and sending you off to prison for years for growing untaxed weed? Just like moonshiners? You may get a slap on the wist for having weed now...But when you steal TAX money from the government ...you are in a world of hurt .
Ask Al Capone- Rahodeb, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6If it's legal, at least you have the option of growing your own and paying taxes to keep it legal. As it is now, growers go to jail regardless.
- floorman56, on 01/08/2008, -4/+2If it's taxed ...no you won't ... Set up a still and brew your own Bourbon ...see what happens.
- BoneheadFarker, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8@floorman56
I know plenty of people who brew their own wine and beer. I know a guy who use to brew his own rye whiskey. No one has ever bothered them, seeing as they aren't selling it...
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Well if you are doing it on the level that Al Capone was, then yes they will come after you. If you are just a casual user growing a couple of plants for personal use, then busting you would cost more money than they would get back from taxes, so they won't do it.
- floorman56, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1Then quit using taxation as a reason for making it legal ... you just want to break that law too
- Phrag, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1I support taxation on marijuana commerce, as in the sale of marijuana for money, not taxation on personal use of a product that you produce yourself. What business does the government have changing me for something they had no hand in producing or regulating?
- dawhitie, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3hmmm since the end of prohibition you can make you own moonshine, you just can't sell it.
- floorman56, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1From the BATF
S3: I've seen ads for home distilling equipment in catalogs ("turn wine into brandy," "make your own essential oils"). Is it legal to buy and use a still like that?
Under Federal rules administered by ATF, it depends on how you use the still. You may not produce alcohol with these stills unless you qualify as a distilled spirits plant (see earlier question). However, owning a small still and using it for other purposes is allowed. You should also check with your State and local authorities - their rules may differ.
- floorman56, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1From the BATF
- Rahodeb, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6If it's legal, at least you have the option of growing your own and paying taxes to keep it legal. As it is now, growers go to jail regardless.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -1/+10Not really. Gov taxes beer. And because you don't sell it and use if for personal consumption, you can brew it yourself without any legal recourse.
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Same with wine, but distilling alcohol for human consumption is illegal. The difference is taxes. A beer or bottle of wine is taxed much less than a 1/5th of vodka. They don't lose much in tax money for homebrewing. How they end up legalizing it will determine if growing it at home is legal also. If they put really high taxes on it, but leave a gaping loophole open like growing it at home, most people will just avoid the tax. If taxes are lower, then there would be less incentive to grow it at home when you could just pick it up at the store.
TL;DR: It's undecided and up in the air at this time. - floorman56, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1But not Bourbon... or smokes and if you think the Gov is going let all that pot tax money get away you have ...well...been smoking
- SouthsideIrish, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1Weed is, well a weed. It is far easier to grow weed than it is to brew beer. The Feds will be getting almost nothing in taxes.
So, whether you legalize it or keep it like it is, you will still keep the jails filled.
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Same with wine, but distilling alcohol for human consumption is illegal. The difference is taxes. A beer or bottle of wine is taxed much less than a 1/5th of vodka. They don't lose much in tax money for homebrewing. How they end up legalizing it will determine if growing it at home is legal also. If they put really high taxes on it, but leave a gaping loophole open like growing it at home, most people will just avoid the tax. If taxes are lower, then there would be less incentive to grow it at home when you could just pick it up at the store.
- solistus, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1People can grow their own tobacco to avoid high taxes on cigarettes. This doesn't stop cigarette taxation in the least.
- Dax420, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Bzzt wrong.
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -13/+2Not really. People need a licence to drive, why not licence people to grow and distribute marijuana?
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -2/+19"That is the pharmaindustry's worst nightmare" What wrong with giving them nightmares for a change. Look at all the suffering caused by defective medication produced by these companies. Side effects that are worse than the disease. Products that only the rich can afford. I don't see what the problem is with some free open market competition.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -4/+5I never understand the hatred of the medicine industry, when was the last time you heard of anybody dying of the common cold who isnt 3 months old or 90 years old. They allowed diabetics to survive and greatly raised the chances of surviving cancer. Yeah some of the drugs are expensive but due to govnment regulation it cost over 1 billion dollars to put a drug on the market. It isnt their fault that they have to charge you so much.
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2Look at pre-FDA American drug industry history. Drug companies would have us all high on cocaine and morphine for everything, including the common cold, without curing anything.
- yournightmare, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1When was the last time you heard of someone dying of the common cold EVER? That rinky-dink Thera-flu ***** you buy doesn't make you any better. The only people who die from a cold are people with immune problems, and medicine doesn't usually help.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4The medicine industry exists because the vast majority of medicines suppress the symptoms but don't really do much for the disease.
How many medicines can you list that have cured diseases? And I mean cured, not left dormant, not reduced, but cured? None of them do. Your money pays the insurance companies who pay big pharma to keep you on their tit.
Oh and that cold that didn't kill you, know how you got over it? the medicine impaired the symptoms so you wouldn't cough your throat raw and irritated and the sedatives helped you sleep to rest. Your body's defense system is what killed the cold. - solistus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Most of the true cures that are invented are invented by lab researchers funded by educational institutions or the government. The pharmaceutical industry hasn't invented many cures, just a lot of ways to suppress symptoms. Think of it this way: why invent a $1 pill that can cure cancer when you can invent a $100,000 treatment option that turns a cancer patient into a locked in 'repeat customer' for life?
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -4/+5I never understand the hatred of the medicine industry, when was the last time you heard of anybody dying of the common cold who isnt 3 months old or 90 years old. They allowed diabetics to survive and greatly raised the chances of surviving cancer. Yeah some of the drugs are expensive but due to govnment regulation it cost over 1 billion dollars to put a drug on the market. It isnt their fault that they have to charge you so much.
- octophobic, on 01/08/2008, -1/+17How many people do you know grow their own tobacco? Advertising and laziness / lack of know-how will make people want to buy prepackaged blunts.
- chrisaug18, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Exactly, and theres even kits to brew your own alcohol at home but you don't see everybody doing that too.
- KingCook, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Alcohol you brew at home has got a name : ***** (I won't drink 2 glasses from)
Weed you just throw some seeds in the right spot : A+ stuff (IT GROWS LIKE WEED)- chrisaug18, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1True, but you can't base the legality of a substance off of that.
- KingCook, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Alcohol you brew at home has got a name : ***** (I won't drink 2 glasses from)
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Different argument though. For tobacco, it has to be stored and aged for optimal taste/smoking properties. Raw, freshly dried tobacco tastes like ass.
As a homebrewer, there's also a reason I still buy beer from the store. Cost. I can't create a Miller or Budweiser level product for the same price (when I can, it's right at the same cost per volume, and I'm just wasting my time and equipment). Now, when it comes to things like Sam Adams, Boulevard, or basically anything that costs more than $1 a bottle, I can brew a beer of the same quality for less cost.
Also, the overwhelming majority of beer drinkers my age don't care about quality. They want Bud and Miller products because they're cheap, not because they taste good. Brewing beer also takes time and dedication, which most people just don't want to add to their daily lives. As for marijuana, I think you'd see the same thing, large pot farms providing low to mid range products, a few small farms providing excellent product for a high price, and then the home-growers creating a high end product for themselves for less cost than the specialty farms.
I say let the market sort it out, but I seriously doubt everyone will become a home grower because most people just don't have the will to do it.- yournightmare, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1"For tobacco, it has to be stored and aged for optimal taste/smoking properties. Raw, freshly dried tobacco tastes like ass."
--Weed has to be properly cured, too. - pkonink, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Those grow lights can easily shoot into the $700-per range. Add to that all the other equipment - a lot more if you go hydroponic - and the time it takes not to mention the skill and all the things that can go wrong (i.e. spider mites, powder mold, etc). If pot was legalized there would be a home-grower boom, but that will in no way effect pharma or professional growers/distributers.
- yournightmare, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1"For tobacco, it has to be stored and aged for optimal taste/smoking properties. Raw, freshly dried tobacco tastes like ass."
- tcsucks, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2You're, literally, comparing apples to oranges. In fact, maybe that's what you should be looking at. I know plenty of people that have apple trees and gardens full of corn and other vegetables. Their reasons for doing so: cost. It's cheaper to grow your own. It's not cheaper to brew your own beer.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5"You're, literally, comparing apples to oranges."
No, literally, he's comparing growing tobacco to growing marijuana. - andre321, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Buried for the use of the word literally.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5"You're, literally, comparing apples to oranges."
- techlyc, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2They call it "weed" for a reason. It grows like one if you can pay attention. Just a quick jaunt on the ninnerweb, and you too can be an expert.
Or just find a friend that'll let ya trim for cash during "the season" up in Eureka and you'll learn everything you never needed to know.- cerealjynx, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Hahahah....I'm about 100 miles south of Eureka. But THIS MAN SPEAKS THE TRUTH
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2"How many people do you know grow their own tobacco?"
It isn't easy to grow tobacco. I know a lot of people who grow their own tomatoes, and marijuana is easier to grow than tomatoes.
- chrisaug18, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Exactly, and theres even kits to brew your own alcohol at home but you don't see everybody doing that too.
- tcsucks, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3I agree. This country, this planet, is controlled by money and money is power. We all see how influential the pharmacuetical companies are in our government - the issue of marijuana is just another instance.
- Qumahlin, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1It's not so much money as it is the religious groups who see any illicit "drug" as a "devils tool", keep in mind these are the same people popping prozac, paxil, klonopin and a myriad of other behavior altering substances which aren't "evil"
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -3/+29And growing at home goes against the articles "let government tax it and control it" position.
- jakedigg, on 01/08/2008, -9/+187The sad and STUPID part is that The "Controlled Substances Act" schedules drugs from 1 through 5, 1 being the most harmful and dangerous and 5 being the least. Marijuana, Mushrooms and LSD are schedule 1 and Cocaine, Speed, PCP, Methadone and Oxycontin are listed as schedule 2. These laws were clearly written by A-Holes !
- doctorfungi, on 01/08/2008, -1/+57So they pick the 3 that you cannot overdose on, and make them more dangerous than 3 that you can?
Yaaay logic!- mancat, on 01/08/2008, -1/+32Most dangerous drugs: Those most likely to cause their users to question the societal status quo.
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -8/+1I was going to guess, they're the most "dangerous" because they're the easiest to produce, and all fairly cheap. The "danger" of the drugs probably includes availability. It's hard to be a coke head in a town of 300 people, but you can still grow shrooms and pot on your own.
- tbunreal, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Yes because im more likely to go on a rampage when im on marijuana rather then PCP.
- mancat, on 01/08/2008, -1/+32Most dangerous drugs: Those most likely to cause their users to question the societal status quo.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -0/+16Nobody said they were smart men. :)
- Defuser, on 01/08/2008, -6/+0Before you comment on the stupidity of other people, you should make sure that you're not agreeing with a TOTAL MORON. Speed and PCP aren't Schedule 2, their PRECURSOR INGREDIENTS are Schedule 2. As for Methadone and Oxycontin: They're prescription drugs, so the reason that they're Schedule 2 is obvious: they're not always illegal.
- yournightmare, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Nobody is agreeing with you because you're a TOTAL MORON. Amphetamine and methamphetamine are both Schedule II. The "precursor ingredients" are ***** OTC, not Schedule II. Amphetamine and methamphetamine are also both prescription drugs and cocaine is still used in medicine. Not to mention that you also managed to completely miss the ***** point that pot, shrooms, and acid are safer than coke, crank, speed, pcp, methadone, and oxycontin.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1and jenkem.
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2 Phencyclidine - PCP (not precursor) - #7471 - Schedule II
Methamphetamine - Speed - #1105 - Schedule II
http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html
You might want to do some fact checking before calling people morons.
- yournightmare, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Nobody is agreeing with you because you're a TOTAL MORON. Amphetamine and methamphetamine are both Schedule II. The "precursor ingredients" are ***** OTC, not Schedule II. Amphetamine and methamphetamine are also both prescription drugs and cocaine is still used in medicine. Not to mention that you also managed to completely miss the ***** point that pot, shrooms, and acid are safer than coke, crank, speed, pcp, methadone, and oxycontin.
- Defuser, on 01/08/2008, -6/+0Before you comment on the stupidity of other people, you should make sure that you're not agreeing with a TOTAL MORON. Speed and PCP aren't Schedule 2, their PRECURSOR INGREDIENTS are Schedule 2. As for Methadone and Oxycontin: They're prescription drugs, so the reason that they're Schedule 2 is obvious: they're not always illegal.
- Petrarch1603, on 01/08/2008, -0/+27what i dont get is why did they need a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, yet they don't need one to outlaw cannabis?
- SouthsideIrish, on 01/11/2008, -1/+1What constitution? We don't have one anymore. It is a meaningless piece of paper.
- beve54, on 01/08/2008, -3/+3@ Petrarch1603
Because the Constitution was used as toilet paper long ago... - TheMatches, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3I want to know what these guys were smoking
- solistus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6The scheduling of psychedelics and cannabis are BLATANTLY in violation of the CSA, too. The CSA stipulates that, in order to be Schedule I, a drug must have no known medical uses. Given the fact that cannabis derivatives are ALREADY SOLD as medicine (see Marinol), it is impossible to justify this scheduling. Psychedelics and MDMA also had a brief but fruitful period of use in psychotherapy before they were banned. Also, Schedule I drugs must be addictive; none of the classic psychedelics are, nor is cannabis.
- chizzlechest420, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1It is in class 1 because all class 1 means is that it is illegal. (street drug illegal)
still a complete joke..... - Psi57, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1If you look into it, all of our oldest drug laws are:
1. Tax laws.
2. Put in place to discriminate against a certain race.
Marijuana was made illegal during the 30's because it was an easy way to deport or imprison Mexicans, which was popular since there weren't many jobs around.
Cocaine was made illegal during the 40's so we could imprison black men easier (look at the since adjusted punishments for crack / powder cocaine possession).
- doctorfungi, on 01/08/2008, -1/+57So they pick the 3 that you cannot overdose on, and make them more dangerous than 3 that you can?
- ArTiFeXx, on 01/08/2008, -8/+151If it got legalized, I would start a weed bar of some sorts. I'd have different types of weed, along with a kitchen. Boy would the kitchen make a killing.
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -3/+67I want to grow a little garden in my back yard around my favorite chair, sit there and enjoy it. When the phone rings, and someone asks "What are you doing?" I want to say, "Watching the grass grow".
- hmmmok, on 01/08/2008, -28/+2That's all you'll be doing.
- skatastrophy, on 01/08/2008, -2/+30I have the feeling that you've been waiting a long time to post that joke :p
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -1/+20No joke, it's a dream I have. Nothing special, just a little something to make me happy.
- Pulpfiction23, on 01/08/2008, -4/+1wow man, if pot brownies were legal. that would be just like oh my god like AWESOME
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Interesting discussions can be had with that idea and the nationwide sweep of smoking bans in places like bars and restaurants.
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7You could create a vaporizer bar.
- nicktheawesome, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2The Volcano Lounge
- Protoss, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2You could make it outdoors, in the same likes as a hookah bar.
- Diggity75, on 01/11/2008, -0/+1Most areas include a clause in the smoking "ban" to exclude private clubs. All you need to do is charge a fee for membership ($1 dollar?) and provide a card stating the card holder is a member of the club (could even print it off a personal computer).
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7You could create a vaporizer bar.
- asauterChicago, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3You bring up an interesting point... with almost every US city going totally smoke free (all public places, bars, restaurants, offices) how would someone have a "weed bar". You would essentially be allowing smoking in your bar, which violates the law in most states...
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8There are exceptions in some states that allow you to have smoking in the business if the primary source of income is from tobacco (or in this case weed) such as a cigar or hooka bar.
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Alice B. Toklas
- skyfire1, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1weed != cigarettes
- dewyjuhl, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1al fresco
- windowi, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I have a hookah bar near where I live, and I asked the dude how his store can legally stay open (in ohio, because of the ohio clean air act) and he said in order to bypass the law the store has to generate 80% of its revenue from smoke sales
- simbelmyrne, on 01/08/2008, -5/+1Best. Idea. Ever. I think ideally it should be like The Griddle in Los Angeles, but that allows you to smoke weed as an appetizer. And then I could have the waffle with brown sugar sour cream and strawberries...
- cerealjynx, on 01/08/2008, -6/+1I'd call it Amsterdamerica!
- ArTiFeXx, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1no no no, I'd call It Forty Till Five.
- solistus, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6You could even give the weed away for free to customers of the restaurant. If anything, it would probably increase your profits.
"Here you are sir, enjoy your blunt of fine Cali Haze free of charge. Shall I bring the dessert menu now?"- sccloatrtk, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1yes, weed the new free bread of all restaurants
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -3/+67I want to grow a little garden in my back yard around my favorite chair, sit there and enjoy it. When the phone rings, and someone asks "What are you doing?" I want to say, "Watching the grass grow".
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -7/+24You could make marijuana illegal by taxing it. Look at cigarettes. Make pot legal and tax it to the point where people say "I have to cut back, the taxes are too high"...LOL
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+191937, Marihuana Tax Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Ac ...
It's how the (drug) prohibition started.- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5True, but is the way we tax tobacco leading to the criminalisation of it? I think you might get different stories from the far edges of the debate, but I think the real point is a cash grab of people who can't help their nicotine addiction. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Then again, we're pretty good at killing the goose that lays the golden egg...
Seems like the same basic premise between tobacco and marijuana.
- smacksaw, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5True, but is the way we tax tobacco leading to the criminalisation of it? I think you might get different stories from the far edges of the debate, but I think the real point is a cash grab of people who can't help their nicotine addiction. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Then again, we're pretty good at killing the goose that lays the golden egg...
- Shorties, on 01/08/2008, -3/+10You could tax it and then use that money for Universal Healthcare!, or paying off the national debt!
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -6/+6Or have a free market society and let people pay for what they use, and get paid for what they can sell (goods or services).
- dezmo, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2But then all the lazy people will die! What do you have against lazy people?
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1They can form labor unions.
- freshjives, on 01/08/2008, -4/+0It's simply natural selection; those whom are more efficient at survival will carry on the genes, while those who are not successful ... die out?
- Paradoxymoron, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0@ freshjives
Damn straight.
- dezmo, on 01/08/2008, -2/+2But then all the lazy people will die! What do you have against lazy people?
- wheninva1, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Like the one Pinochet had?
Oh wait,,,
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -6/+6Or have a free market society and let people pay for what they use, and get paid for what they can sell (goods or services).
- krnldmp, on 01/08/2008, -7/+3Taxing marijuana is for communists.
- Pulpfiction23, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0wouldn't people just grow it in their backyards?
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+191937, Marihuana Tax Act, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Marihuana_Tax_Ac ...
- badwithcomputer, on 01/08/2008, -5/+21did he really have to be so clearly high in the image he submitted? it's like wearing the t-shirt of the headlining band to their concert
- scribby, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Heh, I'm proud to wear my Kottonmouth Kings shirt to every Kottonmouth Kings concert I attend.
- nicktheawesome, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2You went back after the first one?
- whoamarcos, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3oh man, you're "that" guy
- thomascj, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1there's always gotta be one.
i go to outdoor venues more often, along with wearing the headlining bands tshirt -- people also feel compelled to blast their music... as if we weren't about to hear it in a much more enjoyable, higher quality, and louder venue than that of their car stereo.
- thomascj, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1there's always gotta be one.
- lasko, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1i'm proud of never going to one of their shows.
- scribby, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Heh, I'm proud to wear my Kottonmouth Kings shirt to every Kottonmouth Kings concert I attend.
- MurphyWatson, on 01/08/2008, -26/+20***** taxation.
Look at cigarettes, Government regulated, worse than marijuana. Mostly because all the additives they put in cigarettes. Srysly formaldehyde is for dead people.
I have no reason to believe, that given the chance our sleezy government, or rather the whichever corporation who lobbies for them, would totally pervert the natural goodness that is Marijuana. If they legalized marijuana ok, but I'm still buying it illegally.
The government can keep their filthy hands off my weed.- Itazura, on 01/08/2008, -1/+21I hate to ruin your little world, but the government doesn't add tar to cigarettes, cigarette companies do.
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -9/+6With the federal government's blessings.
- thetedster180, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5tar is not added its naturally in the leaf
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4I don't think it matters. Tobacco is legal and taxed and you can get tobacco with no additives. Those additives are there because they reduce costs. I can get legal, with no additives, cigars, pipe tobacco, and cigarettes tobacco. You can even buy brands that don't add chemicals to their tobacco, but they cost more, so you don't.
Cigarette additives are a problem created by the consumer, not the producers. Quit being cheap bastards and support companies who actually do what you want them to do. - Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5If companies started to add stuff to the marijuana, then there would probably be alternative brands that advertise the fact that they don't. Doesn't American Spirit do that with tobacco?
- tillerman00, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah. I smoke those sometimes too, but I'm not big on cigarettes. I prefer the tea.
- chimcham3000, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2exactly i'd rather them tax the hell of something and make money off of it and get us out of debt and reverse what the drug war has done to us economically. nevermind, the fact your weed could land your ass in prison for life depending on where you live in the us. thankfully i live in new mexico. where cops have better things to mess around with unless youre growing that is. let the majors have it. i'll purchase mine organically from American Spirit.
- Itazura, on 01/08/2008, -1/+21I hate to ruin your little world, but the government doesn't add tar to cigarettes, cigarette companies do.
- killakan, on 01/08/2008, -73/+9More junkies demanding their addiction be legalized.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -6/+30killakan: another sheepson refusing to use what small amount of brain matter he/she may have.
BTW, what's the point of keeping addictive substances ILLEGAL?
And why isn't alcohol illegal? Why isn't coffee illegal? Why are pain killers not illegal?
and why is FOOD and OXYGEN not illegal. Every living human, without exception is addicted both to food and air.- polarbobbear, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6I agree with you 100%, except your last argument there is a bit of a strawman. You wouldn't get much credibility arguing that in a true forum.
- njcarlos, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Actually, given the rise in obesity, he has a sound argument going for food addiction: addiction shouldn't dictate legality.
- polarbobbear, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6I agree with you 100%, except your last argument there is a bit of a strawman. You wouldn't get much credibility arguing that in a true forum.
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -3/+26Don't feed the Troll.
- KingCook, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1I couldn't have thought of a more perfect answer :)
- Herostratus, on 01/08/2008, -2/+13Twice as many people are hooked on prescription opiates which are legal then people who smoke pot which is illegal. Guess which one big pharma makes a killing on. Guess which one cant be patented.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1Care to site that... I always thought you guys said everybody from every rung of society smokes
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8Big difference between "Smokes", and "Hooked" or addicted. Pot is not physically addictive.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -3/+1Well since he used smokes and hooked then i would say he should have to defned that. I didnt use those terms he did
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8Big difference between "Smokes", and "Hooked" or addicted. Pot is not physically addictive.
- Linua, on 01/08/2008, -1/+5Pain pills kill, I know, two of my friends are now dead because of them. I smoke pot, and have always smoked it since I was of age to make my own desicions, I'm not dead. I only wish that the doctors that kept giving out candy to my friends would be locked up for abuse of the system, but they are not. I'm still smoking weed, and I'm still alive, sane, and healthy.
- samzklub, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2Pain pills *can* kill. Big difference. Don't blame the drug for someone's poor judgement.
- Herostratus, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Guns dont kill people. Crazy people with guns kill people. WOO HOO!
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -7/+1Care to site that... I always thought you guys said everybody from every rung of society smokes
- usrlocalbin, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Did your church teach you to say that?
- alkaline213, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Ever been to a ***** Starbucks? Everything can be an addiction and most people have a few; that means you too, you hypocritical piece of *****.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -6/+30killakan: another sheepson refusing to use what small amount of brain matter he/she may have.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -10/+55Legalize It.
Don't criticize it.
Your mother smokes it.
.....- NinjaBoy, on 01/08/2008, -1/+12I always thought she did! Thats why she was always making bad ass cookies.
- GRAVEWiSH, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7my mom does smoke it!!!
- Linua, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2My mother use to smoke it, being that she grew up as a teenager during the late 60s....
- heypetray, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3She also took LSD...
- pepemandela, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0Careful! you may prosecuted for infringing copy rights of Peter Tosh..... I will advertize it.
- Frostman3D, on 01/08/2008, -7/+36They need to legalize weed. I'm not so sure about all the other stuff, but weed is no menace to society. Pot smokers are good people that keep to themselves when they smoke weed.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Let's talk about the other stuff you mention.
Prohibition as a policy is a great failure and more detrimental to society then any form of individual substance abuse.
If we took all the money spent on the failed "War on Drugs", and put it to education and rehabilitation of substance abusers, there would be so much money left over that .....
well I hope you get the point. Do some research and you'll see what we're getting at here in the fight of the anti-prohibitionist. - Tyrghast, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5For lack of a place to put this comment, i hit the reply button:
Alcohol prohibition did more to promote organized crime than any other single act in the history of the US. Such has been the same with the War on Drugs. Legalize and you reduce the need for secrecy and violent behavior that comes with illegal trafficking. As a pot smoker, i wouldn't a safer, taxable way to get my 'drugs' than driving to the hood and carrying a knife on me. - Protoss, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Keep to themselves unless they're hungry, then they are keeping to Jack In The Box.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Let's talk about the other stuff you mention.
- Herostratus, on 01/08/2008, -6/+24This has got to be done. I am so tired of having to seal up behind walls to smoke. Out in San Francisco I could walk down the street smoking a joint right in front of the police and I wouldn't get hassled. Down here in Florida they screw with you just for having long hair.
- wheresthevan, on 01/08/2008, -5/+15Whoa... I'm all for legalizing it.... but walking down the street smoking it I'm not... you can't walk down the street chugging a beer either... It should be for personal use... not public....
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -2/+6Thats weird. I see people drinking on the street all the time and no one seems to care.
- eviltandem, on 01/08/2008, -3/+7Fantastic. How about we make rules about what clothes you can wear too? I personally find ANY skin offensive, so you shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street if any skin is visible.
Can we make rules about stupid conversations? I can't tell you how many stupid conversations I hear in a day from random people I pass in the street. Let's ban that too.
Wait, what? You mean the other people on the street have rights too? That's silly, almost like they're people who don't necessarily hold the same views as me. That can't be tolerated. Can we ban that too? I don't like dissenting points of view.
Ok, so smoking and driving is just dumb. Those laws are in place for public safety. I somehow doubt a guy walking down the street with a joint poses any threat to the public. Except the people made out of dorittos. They'll be f-cked.- Herostratus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...
Oh yeah and as for the Dorito people... heh heh heh BEWARE THE MUNCHIE MONSTER!!! - ChromeWalnut, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0your analogies to skin and speech are a bit flawed, but I enjoyed the dorrito comment...
- eviltandem, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Not really. I'm making the point that the constitution and Bill of Rights gives us no authority on other people lawfully walking down the street and minding their own business. In fact, that's the kind of thing it's supposed to be protecting.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean there should be a law. That's a dark tunnel that can lead anywhere. If we ban something in public b/c you don't like it, then we have to ban stuff b/c other people dont' like it. Soon nothing is legal.
If you don't like the smoke don't stand by the person or eat in that restaurant. But you don't have any right to control what the other people around you do. That's just not the American way. The government is supposed to be small and out of our way, not monitoring our every activity for perceived social ideals.
Nowhere does the the constitution give you, or anybody, the right to not be bothered by those around you. That's your responsibility, not the governments.
- eviltandem, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Not really. I'm making the point that the constitution and Bill of Rights gives us no authority on other people lawfully walking down the street and minding their own business. In fact, that's the kind of thing it's supposed to be protecting.
- Herostratus, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...
- Qumahlin, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4Your logic is highly flawed. So by your accounts if I take any mood altering substance I should be relegated to doing it in my own home? Does this mean everyone who is on any sort of prescription medication that affects their mood such as Prozac, Paxil, klonopin, etc should be forced to stay in doors?
Smoking pot in public is the equivalent of smoking a cigarette/cigar in public. If you people are smoking pot so strong that you can't operate in a public setting whatsoever you need to give me the number of your dealer stat. On a related note one of my favorite activities is getting high as hell and then going shopping, not only does it make the malls much easier to put up with, but I typically get more done.- njcarlos, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Perhaps you haven't noticed an increased call for removing cigar(ette) smoking from public venues? Not that it's right, I'm just saying...there is a move toward this mentality.
- eviltandem, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2That sir, is brilliant. I hate the mall.
- Paradoxymoron, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1okay, i'll make sure to put out the cigarettes of any person i see smoking on the sidewalk...
seriously...
- deetank, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5Who are they to judge us simply because our hair is long?
- chimcham3000, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3another reason i live in new mexico. the freaks out number the squares here.
- Phrag, on 01/16/2008, -0/+1What is the count now? 2 against 1?
- wheresthevan, on 01/08/2008, -5/+15Whoa... I'm all for legalizing it.... but walking down the street smoking it I'm not... you can't walk down the street chugging a beer either... It should be for personal use... not public....
- jn1167, on 01/08/2008, -41/+7Because drunk drivers just ain't enough. Now we should have to start dodging potheads as well.
- Etchii, on 01/08/2008, -1/+18most potheads drive slower and more cautiously (paranoia)!
http://www.cannabisculture.com/news/driving
Its the drunks who think they're fine and can't understand why the guys didn't paint the yellow lines in the center of the road..- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3The parinoia would be gone if it was legal. Although my guess is that they would outlaw it while driving.
BTW find a better source that an site with an agenda- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3Find me a source of information on marijuana with no agenda and I'll give you a cookie.
- Gunsdead, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1lol
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -2/+3Find me a source of information on marijuana with no agenda and I'll give you a cookie.
- slvrbullet87, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3The parinoia would be gone if it was legal. Although my guess is that they would outlaw it while driving.
- orangefly, on 01/08/2008, -4/+13the potheads are easy to spot....they are driving 10mph under the speed limit....
- BoneheadFarker, on 01/08/2008, -1/+20Yes, because no one ever gets behind the wheel ***** up on vicodan or percosets, let alone simply over-the-counter cold medication that causes drowsiness and impared judgement. And there's no such thing as a field sobriety test...
- talkingpidgin, on 01/08/2008, -2/+19anybody who has every known a dominos delivery guy knows high driving is not even comparable to drunk driving. friggin professionals of their art.
- wigren, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5I wish I could digg that a thousand times.
- honorableSimon, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I am right there with you.
- 40hands, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3So very true!
- Qumahlin, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6100% true statement. Best situation ever was when the papa johns guy came to my door obviously high, I answered the door also obviously high, we discussed smoking habits, I showed him my various bowls, and since he didn't have another delivery waiting he even packed up one of my bowls for me and smoked a bit. Quite frankly it's pure stereotyping for me to say this, but every "pothead" I have encountered has turned out to be far more affable/polite human beings then the religious nuts who rail against any drug use
- wigren, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5I wish I could digg that a thousand times.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -2/+7jn1167 - I have yet to see anyone here or elsewhere calling for the legalization of marijuana especially when driving.
plus, just because pot is illegal, it would be dangerously stupid of you to think that this means that no one driving on the roads are high on pot.
I think driving while under the influence of any substance needs to regulated by the law.
Drink and sleep it off = legal
Drink and drive = illegal
Smoke and stay home and munch = should be legal IMHO
Smoke the weed and drive = should be illegal, absolutely, IMH (potsmoking) O.- cJw314, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Maybe if they have a field sobriety test for being stoned, it probably would be legal, inf69.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Good point. It's true that there is no way of ascertaining (yet) if a person is still under the effects of THC.
It is much easier now to determine levels of alcohol in a person's system, in real time, then it was many years ago.
I'm sure this point is part of the problem. But this point will never be resolved while pot is illegal.
Who knows? Maybe one day we can measure something in the body that will tell us of the state of that body with respect to THC. But I seriously doubt any new technologies in this field will be developed while pot is illegal.
- lnf69, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Good point. It's true that there is no way of ascertaining (yet) if a person is still under the effects of THC.
- cJw314, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2Maybe if they have a field sobriety test for being stoned, it probably would be legal, inf69.
- octophobic, on 01/08/2008, -4/+4They're not motivated to go very far. Not past the nearest place with junk food anyway.
- Gunsdead, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4Driving under the influence of any psychoactive substance is ill-advised at best, and down right criminally negligent at worst (there is a continuum of drug use to be considered ther as BoneheadFarker pointed out). This is not the issue at hand and its that knee-jerk faulty logic that clouds this discussion. Alcohol is legal. Driving under the influence of alcohol is not.
- Sananda, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Your already dodging them, or do you think Humans Law is enforced by God?
- Vullkan, on 01/08/2008, -1/+2when you smoke weed time passes by slow. so when you are high you care about every move you make
- tobikow, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3When was the last time you saw the news headline "family of four killed by high driver"?
Presidential candidate Mike Gravel recently said that marijuana is safer than alcohol. http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Gravel_To_Teens_ ... - Linua, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Pure ignorance of the drug, that's all you have isn't it?
- honorableSimon, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Seriously, and they think that because they haven't encountered it as much as the rest of the world that it's not an issue. people already smoke just about as much weed as they want, legalizing it isn't going to cause some unexpected spike in the amount of marijuana use.
- Etchii, on 01/08/2008, -1/+18most potheads drive slower and more cautiously (paranoia)!
- entrophize, on 01/08/2008, -14/+3What's marijuana?
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -5/+113Let the states decide. The federal government has no constitutional right to sit in judgment on this issue.
- kronso23, on 01/08/2008, -2/+9Yes! Ron Paul '08!
- pkonink, on 01/08/2008, -0/+7Even though I don't think it's a state's right to tell me I can't smoke pot either, I have to agree with you. I'm tired of living in the Nanny States of America. I'm a grown man who is reasonably educated. I can make my own decisions and I'm adult enough to abide by them for better or worse.
- DrummerAndrew, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3Agreed. Though the South did lose the Civil War.
- ThunderDigger, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Thank you Robert E. Lee
- SouthsideIrish, on 01/11/2008, -1/+2States do not have a right to legalize it since the 9th & 10th amendments no longer exist. Frankly the whole Bill of Rights and Constitution doesn't exist. States no longer have a right to pass a law the Feds don't like, and have no recourse.
- dhVyse, on 01/08/2008, -6/+30With how terrible our US$ is doing right now, this would be a smart move. We need to cut useless spending on victimless crimes.
- 1807, on 01/08/2008, -22/+22drugs are bad m'kay?
- Etchii, on 01/08/2008, -3/+8You don't have to spend your life addicted to smack, homeless on the streets giving handjobs for crack. Follow my plan and soon you will se'ay its easy m'kay!
- Sananda, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6Everything is bad when you overdo it.
- ThunderDigger, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0so is being ignorant. so shut up.
- orlyfactor, on 01/08/2008, -6/+31The Federal Government will never admit they were wrong and legalize something they have had a "war" on for some 20 something years, unfortunately. Stubborn bastards, it could really help fund a lot of social programs and alleviate budget windfalls, instead of funding dealers.
- bclinton, on 01/08/2008, -10/+2It would also create the need for more social programs. No?
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Doubtful. The additive personalities that can't handle substances are probably already using those services for other reasons. It's a relatively static portion of the population that can't keep their lives together. Adding more substances won't increase problems unless the consumers are lied to about it's dangers and risks.
- BlueScreenOD, on 01/08/2008, -0/+16What about the prohibition of alcohol? They repealed that.
- jgzman, on 01/08/2008, -1/+14That was back when this country had an ounce of sense.
- Phrag, on 01/08/2008, -1/+9Can I get an eighth of sense and a dime bag of critical thinking?
- pkonink, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1I think there is just as much common sense now as back then (how much common sense does it take to create the prohibition amendment in the first place? not much I wager). However now we don't need to use common sense because we have lots and lots of MONEY!
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4You can't repeal it if there was no amendment to the constitution in the first place. The federal government has no constitutional right to say "Pot is illegal".
- pkonink, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4The marijuana issue is also heavily tied to white supremacy. Alcohol is a cultural symbol for Europeans, but back in the day the main consumers of pot were black and hispanics - the original anti-marijuana campaign had a lot to do with the migrant farm workers from Mexico in the great depression.
So yes, to your average white person back then (even today somewhat) alcohol = cultural institution (you can even drink it at church!) / mj = drug smoked by brown-skinned rapists of white women
- jgzman, on 01/08/2008, -1/+14That was back when this country had an ounce of sense.
- LBobRife, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Ah, but they could reclassify marijuana as not a "drug" in their "War on Drugs". It is not a "War on Marijuana", so all they need do is endorse it as safe and make it legal to certain age groups.
- bclinton, on 01/08/2008, -10/+2It would also create the need for more social programs. No?
- mystkmastkal, on 01/08/2008, -6/+1awesome i totally agree.
- LetsGoHokies, on 01/08/2008, -3/+8I think it should be legal, and I don't smoke anymore. One thing I wonder is how they are going to regulate potency since it can vary greatly.
- Etchii, on 01/08/2008, -0/+6Probably the same way they do in holland?
- widdershins, on 01/08/2008, -1/+6They can regulate it a hell of a lot better if its legal than if it isn't. When it's illegal you've no idea what you're getting - if you legalise it you can test it and put strength warnings on the packet.
- PabloIV, on 01/08/2008, -0/+20Surgeon General's Warning: "This ***** will ***** you up"
- Treason, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I hope that day comes Pablo!
- PabloIV, on 01/08/2008, -0/+20Surgeon General's Warning: "This ***** will ***** you up"
- Talphin, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1I would say, think about the potency of alcohol. Vodka is a lot more potent than say a watered down beer. I am not sure about the difference in potency between the different kinds of hard liqors such as tequila, vodka, rum, whiskey, etc., but I am sure there has got to be some variation.
Moonshine is supposed to be next to lethal as far as potency goes, which is why it is illegal. But just because moonshine is that bad, doesn't mean you should outlaw all alcohol.- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Everclear grain alcohol is 190 proof (95% alcohol), and it's legal in many states. Moonshine isn't illegal because of potency. It's illegal because it evades taxes, and because it often has impurities (other kinds of alcohols which are toxic). Beer and wine have those same impurities - they're products of fermentation. Distillation done right removes them. Distillation done wrong concentrates them. Distillation is tricky business.
- Talphin, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Yeah, uhh thats what I meant to say... :P
- Linua, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Lot's of homebrewers of moonshine use to solder with lead, hince the danger. Now a days, most people have solder that doesn't contain lead. The fear about moonshine still lives on though....
- unclemeat, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5The difference between strong alcohol and strong weed is that if you have too much high powered spliff, you'll just lay down on your couch feeling incredibly stoned and maybe slightly ill, but if you have far too much of a strong alcoholic drink, you'll throw up, pass out and possibly go comatose or die.
- nepawoods, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3Everclear grain alcohol is 190 proof (95% alcohol), and it's legal in many states. Moonshine isn't illegal because of potency. It's illegal because it evades taxes, and because it often has impurities (other kinds of alcohols which are toxic). Beer and wine have those same impurities - they're products of fermentation. Distillation done right removes them. Distillation done wrong concentrates them. Distillation is tricky business.
- thewfirestarter, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2How do you think they know some pots have 4% THC while others have 12% THC? There are tests.
If it was legalized and regulated, they'd probably standardize and use certain plant varieties with hearty growing properties, decent taste and decent THC levels, just like tobacco has done in their various industries (pipe and cigars only use a handful of tobacco plants, each variety is fairly predictable in what it produces, cigarette companies usually use a complex blend, but they are also predictable). - ChromeWalnut, on 01/09/2008, -0/+0why dont you smoke anymore
- cobra1122, on 01/08/2008, -11/+10mike gravel 2008 running candidate says " we must decriminalize minor drug offenses" he is going to legalese marijuana (http://www.gravel2008.us/issues)
- Nanite, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2No, He's going to "decriminalize" it. That means it's still illegal (Police still get all their DEA $$$) but they can't arrest or put you in jail for just possessing personal amounts. They just fine you for that.
It's a slight of hand that only addresses a small part of the overall problem. But I guess you get what you can take from the politicians.- thawkth, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4You are completely, 100% WRONG.
He has literally said there is nothing wrong with smoking a joint, it causes no harm.
He says you should be able to pick it up anytime you want in a package store just like alcohol - as it causes so much less damage.
Do some research before marching through life ignorant and sounding like an ass.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1aTHId2RTG0
- thawkth, on 01/08/2008, -2/+4You are completely, 100% WRONG.
- republicker, on 01/08/2008, -6/+1the snowball already melted dude, ron paul's did too, unfortunately
- fractalman, on 01/08/2008, -5/+1I got news for you, he ain't going to do *****. He won't get elected, and his sphere of influence is very small. That doesn't mean that I disagree with him, cause I do agree, but he isn't the one to get it done.
- noflashlight, on 01/08/2008, -4/+1Sadly, that is why he won't get elected. If only he kept his mouth shut until after election day.
- chimcham3000, on 01/08/2008, -0/+0naw the govt would NEVER decriminalize. theres no money for big business there. what country do you think you live in. i'm fine it. like i said i'll buy organically from American Spirit.
- Nanite, on 01/08/2008, -3/+2No, He's going to "decriminalize" it. That means it's still illegal (Police still get all their DEA $$$) but they can't arrest or put you in jail for just possessing personal amounts. They just fine you for that.
- Gunsdead, on 01/08/2008, -3/+29Drugs are too profitable to be left in the hands of criminals. "For every prohibition you create, you also create an underground". - Jello Biafra
- Flipperbw, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Jello?
- Gunsdead, on 01/08/2008, -0/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jello_Biafra lol, not his Christian name...
- Flipperbw, on 01/08/2008, -1/+3Jello?
- jasonpwnd, on 01/08/2008, -8/+58First of all, I smoke and aspire to be a botanist or pharmacologist so don't take me wrong but:
1.)Whoever says this article is well written is probably high right now.
2.) This is just some dumb opinion piece written by a stoner trying to legalize the herb.
There are plenty of reasons that legalization would be better for our country, including tax dollars not getting wasted on the "War on Drugs" (Thanks Bush).
The taxes from pharmacutically grown marijuana would bring in about $11 billion depending on state size and usage. The current law enforcement bill would go down significantly from not having to enforce our scheduled substances.
Summary:
This article sucks
The real problem is that our government labels drugs "bad" (pot) and "good" (ritalin) and teaches all of its citizens this thought process.
THERE ARE NO BAD DRUGS PEOPLE, ALL DRUGS CAN BE USEFUL -- YOU JUST NEED TO TEACH PEOPLE WHAT EACH ONE IS GOOD FOR.- Defuser, on 01/08/2008, -3/+8Holy crap. An intelligent post in a Pot thread. Is that allowed?
- Flipperbw, on 01/08/2008, -0/+5How is crystal meth ever good
- kevinalright, on 01/08/2008, -1/+4in moderation any drug can be good. it can provide a short escape from reality, it could provide self insight it could just be a stress reliever. but instead of punishing people for it we should be teaching people about drugs and teaching them about addiction and teaching them about how to use drugs responsibly, and sometimes responsibility is not using a drug at all, because there are some that are very dangerous and very addictive (LIKE HEROIN, BAYER same company that makes asprin MADE HEROIN) but we shouldn't be filling everyones heads with propaganda ***** like our government has been doing since alcohol prohibition. when almost anyone thinks of pot they think of an under-achiever and someone that can never be successful in society. when that couldn't be farther from the truth.
- tehjarvis, on 01/08/2008, -0/+8When I need to clean my entire house in 10 minutes flat.
- UglyBunny, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4Crystal meth is different than desoxyn in both method of delivery and dosage.
- Linua, on 01/08/2008, -2/+1We're talking about pot, not meth here. Two different drugs, two different effects.
- Paradoxymoron, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I'm wondering, did you actually read the last sentence of Jasonpwnd's comment?
Or any of it...
- Paradoxymoron, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I'm wondering, did you actually read the last sentence of Jasonpwnd's comment?
- kevinalright, on 01/08/2008, -0/+4(Thanks Bush)? i believe it was Nixon... but yeah. drugs can be very useful and have been used in civilizations for thousands of years. America is just full of ignorant assholes who believe anything without doing any research, back in the 1920's (when marijuana was first made illegal) the primary reason was to control Mexican immigrants, virtually no one in the U.S knew what marijuana was, and when some guy went in front of congress and said smoking it made him go crazy everyone without thinking twice signed the bill that made it illegal. and pretty much the federal government hasn't changed its opinion on marijuana since the 1920's and they aren't trying to change their opinion since it fills their jails with non-violent criminals and a flexible workforce.
- heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Bureau Official: Here is an example: A fifteen-year-old lad apprehended in the act of staging a holdup - fifteen years old and a marijuana addict. Here is a most tragic case.
Dr. Carroll: Yes. I remember. Just a young boy... under the influence of drugs... who killed his entire family with an axe.
. . . Victor had smoked some marihuana cigarettes that afternoon. After going to bed that night, he suddenly though, as nightmarish hallucinations raced through his mind, that his mother and father were plotting to cut off his arms and legs as soon as they got up in the morning. This horrible obsession fixed itself in his mind; and so real was this imagined threat to him, that he decided the only thing to do was kill them first, while they slept.
. . . [at the crime scene a few months after the murders], the police confided to us that the father, who had be
- heypetray, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Bureau Official: Here is an example: A fifteen-year-old lad apprehended in the act of staging a holdup - fifteen years old and a marijuana addict. Here is a most tragic case.