goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: pike on October 25, 2010, 11:38:31 PM
-
My God I hope so. Idk about you, but 60 dollars for and 8th is a lot of rough ridin' money. And you know the hippies are gonna actually vote this time too, so the chances are good.
Do the right thing Cali, piss off Bill Oreilly and Big Pharma.
Do it.
-
:facepalm:
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
I agree. Too much time/money spent on the little things.
-
I think this has been litigated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
-
I think this has been litigated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
If the feds treat it like illegal immigration, should be nothing to worry about.
The problems start when a state tries to enforce federal law. Right?
-
I think this has been litigated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
If the feds treat it like illegal immigration, should be nothing to worry about.
The problems start when a state tries to enforce federal law. Right?
Stop, you're going to confuse the libtards :nono:
-
George Soros has invested $3 million to the cause of getting it legalized.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/multibillionaire-investor-george-soros-backs-proposition-19.html
-
:facepalm:
Is your :facepalm: directed at pike or the fact that it will still be illegal?
-
:facepalm:
Is your :facepalm: directed at pike or the fact that it will still be illegal?
At the time, it was that with all of the other problems, seems like it could wait a few years. It it's illegal, so be it. If it's not, so be it.
-
Legalizing marijuana would significantly decrease the budget deficit, which is what I thought all the right wing nutjobs were worried about these days.
-
Legalizing marijuana would significantly decrease the budget deficit, which is what I thought all the right wing nutjobs were worried about these days.
That's a load of crap, beems. It would end up being just like cigarettes. Pot is worse for you, smoke wise, than tobacco is anyway.
-
Legalizing marijuana would significantly decrease the budget deficit, which is what I thought all the right wing nutjobs were worried about these days.
That's a load of crap, beems. It would end up being just like cigarettes. Pot is worse for you, smoke wise, than tobacco is anyway.
Spoken like someone who has never smoked pot. Smoking out of a vaporizer is a lot healthier for you than smoking out of an unfiltered joint/cigarette. Cigarettes have many more chemicals/additives and are much more addictive than marijuana. Legalizing marijuana would allow the product to be taxed, which would create additional revenue for the states and federal government.
-
True, the gov't does make a pretty penny off of cigarettes. And if you're worried about smoke there are vaporizers and THC pills. Plus, I don't really know any potheads who give a eff about the smoke. That's kinda like saying you shouldn't drink alcohol because it does liver damage. I'm well aware of that but I just don't care.
-
True, the gov't does make a pretty penny off of cigarettes. And if you're worried about smoke there are vaporizers and THC pills. Plus, I don't really know any potheads who give a eff about the smoke. That's kinda like saying you shouldn't drink alcohol because it does liver damage. I'm well aware of that but I just don't care.
Yep. Gotta die sometime, AMIRITE? Better than old and senile.
-
Cigs are way less healthy than pot, no question. Not to mention the medicanal benefits. For instance, is it healthier for me to smoke a J for my anxiety or take a HIGHLY addictive and dangerous benzodiazepine (ativan). Ill take the former, if big pharma let's me
-
Cigs are way less healthy than pot, no question. Not to mention the medicanal benefits. For instance, is it healthier for me to smoke a J for my anxiety or take a HIGHLY addictive and dangerous benzodiazepine (ativan). Ill take the former, if big pharma let's me
Yet you vote Republican?
:confused:
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Why doesn't that happen for alcohol/tobacco?
-
Plus, I'm a bit of a war-monger.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
-
Legalizing marijuana would significantly decrease the budget deficit, which is what I thought all the right wing nutjobs were worried about these days.
That's a load of crap, beems. It would end up being just like cigarettes. Pot is worse for you, smoke wise, than tobacco is anyway.
I wonder if the average pot smoker smokes twenty joints a day.
-
Price would go down because people would start producing like crazy, and there would be no need to go thru sketch ball dealers when you can just sell to the local dope shop
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Why doesn't that happen for alcohol/tobacco?
This is the exact kind of ridiculous argument that makes liberals so infuriatingly stupid. Don't recall an enormous underground network of alcohol dealers fighting an illegal war back in 8th C or whenever alcohol was invented and ingrained into Western culture. Try again.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Why doesn't that happen for alcohol/tobacco?
This is the exact kind of ridiculous argument that makes liberals so infuriatingly stupid. Don't recall an enormous underground network of alcohol dealers fighting an illegal war back in 8th C or whenever alcohol was invented and ingrained into Western culture. Try again.
Wow... ever heard of prohibition in the 1920's?
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Why doesn't that happen for alcohol/tobacco?
This is the exact kind of ridiculous argument that makes liberals so infuriatingly stupid. Don't recall an enormous underground network of alcohol dealers fighting an illegal war back in 8th C or whenever alcohol was invented and ingrained into Western culture. Try again.
Wow... ever heard of prohibition in the 1920's?
Those damned liberals in the 20's. First they take alcohol away then they give it back. Radical!
Hey Rastaman, again with the false analogies.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
Okay... it's official: this guy is a parody poster. No one can be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.
-
Patriot Act is for limiting civil rights, duh
-
Price would go down because people would start producing like crazy, and there would be no need to go thru sketch ball dealers when you can just sell to the local dope shop
Just because the govt may make it legal to possess mary jane, that doesn't mean they will make it legal to grow it. Best thing they could do is to have govt only farms.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Why doesn't that happen for alcohol/tobacco?
This is the exact kind of ridiculous argument that makes liberals so infuriatingly stupid. Don't recall an enormous underground network of alcohol dealers fighting an illegal war back in 8th C or whenever alcohol was invented and ingrained into Western culture. Try again.
Wow... ever heard of prohibition in the 1920's?
Those damned liberals in the 20's. First they take alcohol away then they give it back. Radical!
Hey Rastaman, again with the false analogies.
Liberalism is based on the principle of individual liberty. What's your excuse for the PATRIOT Act, by the way? Also, by advocating for marijuana to be illegal, aren't you preventing a potential individual freedom?
-
Patriot Act is for limiting civil rights, duh
It restricts the limits of individual freedom.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
Okay... it's official: this guy is a parody poster. No one can be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.
Surprised you tapped out so soon
Your inability to correlate things is astounding. In a vacuum legalizing pot is a fantastic idea. When you couple it with the fact that we have free health care (pre and post Obamacare), welfare problems, etc. it's really not a good idea, fiscally speaking (long term, I know that's hard for liberals).
-
Patriot Act is for limiting civil rights, duh
He's already deleting posts
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
Okay... it's official: this guy is a parody poster. No one can be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.
Surprised you tapped out so soon
Your inability to correlate things is astounding. In a vacuum legalizing pot is a fantastic idea. When you couple it with the fact that we have free health care (pre and post Obamacare), welfare problems, etc. it's really not a good idea, fiscally speaking (long term, I know that's hard for liberals).
What don't you understand about the fact that legalizing marijuana would create tax revenue for the government?
-
Patriot Act is for limiting civil rights, duh
He's already deleting posts
Whoa... do you think pike's quote actually helps your argument? This guy is an absolute treasure.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
Okay... it's official: this guy is a parody poster. No one can be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.
Surprised you tapped out so soon
Your inability to correlate things is astounding. In a vacuum legalizing pot is a fantastic idea. When you couple it with the fact that we have free health care (pre and post Obamacare), welfare problems, etc. it's really not a good idea, fiscally speaking (long term, I know that's hard for liberals).
What don't you understand about the fact that legalizing marijuana would create tax revenue for the government?
I'm skeptical whether whatever tax revenue generated would be enough to offset the increased cost from increased social problems from legalizing a drug that for some reason is illegal in every single other country on the planet. I'm pretty sure every other country doesn't have issues with "big pharma" and they still find a reason for it to be illegal. (decriminalized does not mean legal)
Do you ever stop and think, or are you literally a liberal parrot squawking whatever some dipsh!t tells you is liberal?
-
Why are neo cons so against pot? I mean I hate liberals and such too but I don't listen to what O'reilly and Beck tell me every day
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Fslides%2Fphotos%2F000%2F265%2F164%2Fgoodgrief3_display_image.jpg&hash=3c3bd1c964d1d63c7a0fc02a915a43286ebfcbb0)
-
Why are neo cons so against pot? I mean I hate liberals and such too but I don't listen to what O'reilly and Beck tell me every day
Obviously they're just trying to promote individual freedom, as well as decrease the national budget deficit.
:flush:
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
-
Why are neo cons so against pot? I mean I hate liberals and such too but I don't listen to what O'reilly and Beck tell me every day
Not a nee con, but I'm not against pot, I just think the arguments for it are fairly undeveloped and a little stupid. I also don't like how liberals have stolen it as "their thing" like they did with "recycling" so I usually do a little :bait: when it comes up.
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Fslides%2Fphotos%2F000%2F265%2F164%2Fgoodgrief3_display_image.jpg&hash=3c3bd1c964d1d63c7a0fc02a915a43286ebfcbb0)
Ever heard of the Clinton tax cuts?
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Fslides%2Fphotos%2F000%2F265%2F164%2Fgoodgrief3_display_image.jpg&hash=3c3bd1c964d1d63c7a0fc02a915a43286ebfcbb0)
You betcha, Jeffy. You'd be guaranteed to never make $250,000.
-
dont know much about the legality of the issue.. this would just mean the possession of a certain amount of weed would now be legal right? Or are they just saying eff it and saying you can grow it smoke it shove it up your ass etc?
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bleacherreport.net%2Fimages_root%2Fslides%2Fphotos%2F000%2F265%2F164%2Fgoodgrief3_display_image.jpg&hash=3c3bd1c964d1d63c7a0fc02a915a43286ebfcbb0)
Ever heard of the Clinton tax cuts?
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
dont know much about the legality of the issue.. this would just mean the possession of a certain amount of weed would now be legal right? Or are they just saying eff it and saying you can grow it smoke it shove it up your ass etc?
They don't know either
-
I'm skeptical whether whatever tax revenue generated would be enough to offset the increased cost from increased social problems from legalizing a drug that for some reason is illegal in every single other country on the planet. I'm pretty sure every other country doesn't have issues with "big pharma" and they still find a reason for it to be illegal. (decriminalized does not mean legal)
Do you ever stop and think, or are you literally a liberal parrot squawking whatever some diphullabaloo tells you is liberal?
The financial benefits of legalizing marijuana would be enormous. You cannot simply count tax revenue. You also have to count how much money we would save by not having to incarcerate non-violent potheads. This alone would save nearly $8 billion annually.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/22148/ (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/22148/)
-
Boom, roasted
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
It terrifies me that people think this. :frown:
-
I vote republican cause I'm a rich white guy and they have my best interests at heart.
Unless you make more than $250,000 a year, your best economic interests would actually reside with the Democrats.
It terrifies me that people think this. :frown:
Yes, this is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). The actual figure is closer to $50,000.
-
If Cali is allowed to legalize pot, doesn't that pretty much doom Obamacare?
-
If Cali is allowed to legalize pot, doesn't that pretty much doom Obamacare?
How do you figure?
-
If Cali is allowed to legalize pot, doesn't that pretty much doom Obamacare?
How do you figure?
Federal law says MJ is illegal. California is a state saying it is. There are like 20 states crafting laws that say its citizens don't have to follow the insurance mandate. The Fed is saying they are preempted.
The courts probably can't say that Cali can preempt the Fed Drug laws (and have already said the opposite), but other States can't preempt healthcare law.
Again, this is all moot based on the SCOTUS case I posted in like the third comment to this thread.
-
If Cali is allowed to legalize pot, doesn't that pretty much doom Obamacare?
How do you figure?
Federal law says MJ is illegal. California is a state saying it is. There are like 20 states crafting laws that say its citizens don't have to follow the insurance mandate. The Fed is saying they are preempted.
The courts probably can't say that Cali can preempt the Fed Drug laws (and have already said the opposite), but other States can't preempt healthcare law.
Again, this is all moot based on the SCOTUS case I posted in like the third comment to this thread.
Well, I doubt you are right, but hopefully you are. I really don't appreciate having to pay more for the same health care that I already get.
-
If Cali is allowed to legalize pot, doesn't that pretty much doom Obamacare?
How do you figure?
Federal law says MJ is illegal. California is a state saying it is. There are like 20 states crafting laws that say its citizens don't have to follow the insurance mandate. The Fed is saying they are preempted.
The courts probably can't say that Cali can preempt the Fed Drug laws (and have already said the opposite), but other States can't preempt healthcare law.
Again, this is all moot based on the SCOTUS case I posted in like the third comment to this thread.
Well, I doubt you are right, but hopefully you are. I really don't appreciate having to pay more for the same health care that I already get.
I'm always right :gocho:
However, in re-reading my post, preempt is definitely the wrong word, but you get the picture.
It all revolves around the Commerce Clause, and probably the Necessary and Proper clause. SCOTUS had a trend of loosely interpreting the Commerce clause for about 60 years with the liberal court, now it's starting to be reigned in a little (see case called Lopez re: feds regulating guns near schools) with some sanity back on the bench.
-
I'm skeptical whether whatever tax revenue generated would be enough to offset the increased cost from increased social problems from legalizing a drug that for some reason is illegal in every single other country on the planet. I'm pretty sure every other country doesn't have issues with "big pharma" and they still find a reason for it to be illegal. (decriminalized does not mean legal)
Do you ever stop and think, or are you literally a liberal parrot squawking whatever some diphullabaloo tells you is liberal?
The financial benefits of legalizing marijuana would be enormous. You cannot simply count tax revenue. You also have to count how much money we would save by not having to incarcerate non-violent potheads. This alone would save nearly $8 billion annually.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/22148/ (http://www.alternet.org/drugs/22148/)
VERY few potheads are incarcerated anymore, except to post bond.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
Okay... it's official: this guy is a parody poster. No one can be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.
Surprised you tapped out so soon
Your inability to correlate things is astounding. In a vacuum legalizing pot is a fantastic idea. When you couple it with the fact that we have free health care (pre and post Obamacare), welfare problems, etc. it's really not a good idea, fiscally speaking (long term, I know that's hard for liberals).
What don't you understand about the fact that legalizing marijuana would create tax revenue for the government?
So would legalizing coke.
-
Who the f*ck is going to buy government taxed and regulated (god only knows what they'll do when "regulating" it) pot when you can just buy it on the street cheaper?
And yes, I've heard the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking point about how it will flood demand and drive prices down pushing dealers out of the market (only Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) libs who don't understand basic economics believe this). It won't, that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), drug smugglers/dealers (billion dollar industry) aren't going to stop selling pot just because it's legalized, they will continue to sell it at a price below govt. and if they don't have any regard for the government now, they sure ashell aren't going to all of the sudden care because it's legal.
Other than that, it's a superb idea (besides the whole health, safety and welfare of the state thing, ya know having a bunch of stoned people driving around running over little kids like degenerate alcoholics).
Alcohol is far more destructive to your health than marijuana, yet it's legal. I don't see many privatized bootleggers out there selling moonshine on the streets, either. You are some kind of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), to put it mildly.
Before making unfounded statements like that, lets wait until pot is legal and do a study and see which one is worse for you over an 80 year period. mmkay
You calling me a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is like Jordan Webb telling Peyton Manning he sucks at football. Question, when alcohol was made illegal back in the day (prohibition), where those people who effectuated that radical change liberals?
Okay... it's official: this guy is a parody poster. No one can be this ignorant. I refuse to believe it.
Surprised you tapped out so soon
Your inability to correlate things is astounding. In a vacuum legalizing pot is a fantastic idea. When you couple it with the fact that we have free health care (pre and post Obamacare), welfare problems, etc. it's really not a good idea, fiscally speaking (long term, I know that's hard for liberals).
What don't you understand about the fact that legalizing marijuana would create tax revenue for the government?
So would legalizing coke.
and prostitution, and timbering our national forests, and drilling in Alaska (or anywhere for that matter) . . .
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
There is no evidence to support this. People don't still buy booze from the mob, and nobody will buy pot off the street when its safer and actually legal to buy it from a store.
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
if you are buying pot from HUD housing you have no idea what you are doing. nor do you know anything about pot. and it is a big deal to buy it off the street. and those "people" you are referring to can go and work in the fields and make just as much money because of the actual jobs that pot created rather than being indebted to some psuedo local drug king pin (if they have any actual contact with him at all. they probably are at least 10 steps away from the top of the food chain in any given city).
obviously you have no idea what you are talking about here. and i can't say that its good or bad. but illegal pot has a system in place right now that is unbeknownst to almost everyone who is not involved with it. it would all change completely if it is on a store shelf. when you have over 60% of all americans attesting to at least trying it then there are a lot more users than you think. an amount of people like that don't subsist on the guy in apartment 4D in some shitty part of town.
pot is a product. and like all products it can be produced in different varieties and quality. each one of those has a different consumer base. all the way to the top.
-
It's beginning to look like it won't pass, probably because the governator has already decriminalized possession under an OZ a couple of months ago. I was really looking forward to growing one good plant. :frown:
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
if you are buying pot from HUD housing you have no idea what you are doing. nor do you know anything about pot. and it is a big deal to buy it off the street. and those "people" you are referring to can go and work in the fields and make just as much money because of the actual jobs that pot created rather than being indebted to some psuedo local drug king pin (if they have any actual contact with him at all. they probably are at least 10 steps away from the top of the food chain in any given city).
obviously you have no idea what you are talking about here. and i can't say that its good or bad. but illegal pot has a system in place right now that is unbeknownst to almost everyone who is not involved with it. it would all change completely if it is on a store shelf. when you have over 60% of all americans attesting to at least trying it then there are a lot more users than you think. an amount of people like that don't subsist on the guy in apartment 4D in some cacty part of town.
pot is a product. and like all products it can be produced in different varieties and quality. each one of those has a different consumer base. all the way to the top.
LMFAO, you might be the most naive person on this board :lol: :lol:
and the other 49 states??
also, HUD and Section8 housing is not only in the bad part of town, my god :facepalm: Now go back to watching Weeds dumbass
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
There is no evidence to support this. People don't still buy booze from the mob, and nobody will buy pot off the street when its safer and actually legal to buy it from a store.
The evidence is in the illegal drug war funded by the multi-billion dollar drug industry in Mexico. If legalizing pot was actually a threat to the cartel's about a dozen California politicians would already be dead. It's just common sense.
Nobody that smokes weed regularly is concerned about the safety of the product other than how high it gets them. If they were concerned about safety they wouldn't smoke it. The sh*t that makes it unsafe is what makes it better anyways. :bigtoke:
Please, enough with the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) mob/alcohol analogy. It's really not the same.
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
There is no evidence to support this. People don't still buy booze from the mob, and nobody will buy pot off the street when its safer and actually legal to buy it from a store.
The evidence is in the illegal drug war funded by the multi-billion dollar drug industry in Mexico. If legalizing pot was actually a threat to the cartel's about a dozen California politicians would already be dead. It's just common sense.
Nobody that smokes weed regularly is concerned about the safety of the product other than how high it gets them. If they were concerned about safety they wouldn't smoke it. The sh*t that makes it unsafe is what makes it better anyways. :bigtoke:
Please, enough with the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) mob/alcohol analogy. It's really not the same.
Oh, ok. Well I guess you win then.
-
Interesting side note: Most Latin American leaders and media commentators (especially in Mexico and Colombia) are against Prop 19. However, they're also open to (and in some cases supportive of) legalization/decriminalization. Prop 19 is dumb, but it may be dumb like the Arizona immigration law is dumb, in that it could force policy makers (in this case, at an international level...where it should be) to honestly re-evaluate the situation and "adjust to field conditions." So, dumb like a coyote.
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
if you are buying pot from HUD housing you have no idea what you are doing. nor do you know anything about pot. and it is a big deal to buy it off the street. and those "people" you are referring to can go and work in the fields and make just as much money because of the actual jobs that pot created rather than being indebted to some psuedo local drug king pin (if they have any actual contact with him at all. they probably are at least 10 steps away from the top of the food chain in any given city).
obviously you have no idea what you are talking about here. and i can't say that its good or bad. but illegal pot has a system in place right now that is unbeknownst to almost everyone who is not involved with it. it would all change completely if it is on a store shelf. when you have over 60% of all americans attesting to at least trying it then there are a lot more users than you think. an amount of people like that don't subsist on the guy in apartment 4D in some cacty part of town.
pot is a product. and like all products it can be produced in different varieties and quality. each one of those has a different consumer base. all the way to the top.
LMFAO, you might be the most naive person on this board :lol: :lol:
and the other 49 states??
also, HUD and Section8 housing is not only in the bad part of town, my god :facepalm: Now go back to watching Weeds dumbass
yes yes naive. i would really love to talk more about this but it is pretty apparent that you are incapable of actual conversation. keep up the fishing and good luck with however you think the world works.
fact: legalizing pot will create taxable jobs and a taxable product. whoever decides to fill those jobs, whether it be people in hud housing (your reference, not mine) or college students or illegals, they will be getting paid.
my point is that you don't buy drugs in "the bad part of town." that reference is a product of whatever stigma or asinine societal outlook you have about the drug and its uses. so you keep using those dare campaign ads as evidence of your theories. have fun being the bad person bro.
-
I'm sure the process of smuggling pot into the US (and losing large amounts in the process) couldn't possibly increase the price of it. I mean, if you're legally shipping it in from, say, Washington state, it has to cost just as much as sneaking it across the border from Mexico. Right?
even though this post is extremely :opcat:
i would have to say its a valid point. pot is a weed. it can grow pretty much anywhere and it doesn't cost much to produce. it would turn into just another item subject to taxes and shipping costs. on top of that i couldn't see people wanting to run through the gauntlet of contacting some guy on the street in order to buy pot when they can just go to the store and get quality controlled cannabis that won't have bugs crawling on it, or that won't be laced with some other substance, or just grow your own.
along with that theory you could couple it with the fact that marijuana is currently the cash crop for mexican cartels. once it is taken away from them they will be forced to rely on other narcotics that aren't nearly as popular. meaning the price would have to go up in order to pay for the shipping cost without supplementing through marijuana. pretty simple thought process.
if anything the national economy will help the legalization in california. it promises jobs, tax revenue, and something to do on the weekends (and most mornings, afternoons, and weekdays for some). for a crop that is 10x cheaper to produce than oranges, california could see a major change in agriculture.
mexican cartels aren't going to stop growing pot (billions of dollars of revenue) because it's suddenly illegal in California. Anyone that knows anything about buying pot, knows it's not that big of a deal to buy it off the street (aka from some guy who lives in a sh*tty Section 8 apartment).
If anything HUD housing is the current retail store for pot. Legalizing it and taxing it would be devastating to America's poor and those who sell it as a source of income to supplement their welfare checks.
if you are buying pot from HUD housing you have no idea what you are doing. nor do you know anything about pot. and it is a big deal to buy it off the street. and those "people" you are referring to can go and work in the fields and make just as much money because of the actual jobs that pot created rather than being indebted to some psuedo local drug king pin (if they have any actual contact with him at all. they probably are at least 10 steps away from the top of the food chain in any given city).
obviously you have no idea what you are talking about here. and i can't say that its good or bad. but illegal pot has a system in place right now that is unbeknownst to almost everyone who is not involved with it. it would all change completely if it is on a store shelf. when you have over 60% of all americans attesting to at least trying it then there are a lot more users than you think. an amount of people like that don't subsist on the guy in apartment 4D in some cacty part of town.
pot is a product. and like all products it can be produced in different varieties and quality. each one of those has a different consumer base. all the way to the top.
LMFAO, you might be the most naive person on this board :lol: :lol:
and the other 49 states??
also, HUD and Section8 housing is not only in the bad part of town, my god :facepalm: Now go back to watching Weeds dumbass
yes yes naive. i would really love to talk more about this but it is pretty apparent that you are incapable of actual conversation. keep up the fishing and good luck with however you think the world works.
fact: legalizing pot will create taxable jobs and a taxable product. whoever decides to fill those jobs, whether it be people in hud housing (your reference, not mine) or college students or illegals, they will be getting paid.
my point is that you don't buy drugs in "the bad part of town." that reference is a product of whatever stigma or asinine societal outlook you have about the drug and its uses. so you keep using those dare campaign ads as evidence of your theories. have fun being the bad person bro.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
I don't see how legalizing pot will hurt the poor...especially since it could create new jobs and tax revenue for a state that's trying to sell san quentin and the rough ridin' stadium usc plays in because they're so desparate to get money. The only industry that suffers from this is big pharma, which is a good thing
-
What I don't get is that most of the budget savings will be due to no longer having govt jobs to enforce the existing law, yet many conservatives are against it.
Supposedly, the state is estimating $1.3trillion dollars savings/rev combo if it gets past, but something like $860M of that is in law enforcement/prison employees that would no longer be needed. Conservatives want less government, here is their chance. Bring in $350M in new rev and trim govt budget by $860M. This sounds like a good idea.
Sure there will be a temp increase in TBL type folks signing up for unemployment, but is that a reason to not do it?
If it is the reason, who are the conservatives talking about when they say they want to make govt smaller and more efficient?
For the record, I am a moderate conservative and I like the idea of legalizing it. I hope it happens in CA so that it may spread. We would all be better off if we worried about crap that matters, and lets face it, pot doesn't make that list.
-
Totally conservative here and would legalize it without a second thought. Then I would partake. :woot:
Of course I could be mistaken for a libertarian.
-
Definitely not a conservative vs liberal issue. The issue is freeing up law enforcement and court resources (money) for more important criminal endeavors. Nobody would be laid off and it will be handled in the same way as alcohol related crimes.
-
Not too surprising but Prop 19 is going down in California.
Billions of dollars will continue going to foreign cartels that could have otherwise gone to city/state coffers. :flush:
Found this surprising. voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.
-
Not too surprising but Prop 19 is going down in California.
Billions of dollars will continue going to foreign cartels that could have otherwise gone to city/state coffers. :flush:
Found this surprising. voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.
where did you hear this?
-
Not too surprising but Prop 19 is going down in California.
Billions of dollars will continue going to foreign cartels that could have otherwise gone to city/state coffers. :flush:
Found this surprising. voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.
where did you hear this?
LA Times. Last line.
Prop. 19, the measure to legalize marijuana in California, drew its strongest support from voters under 25 years old, Democrats and big-city-dwellers.
But the California exit poll also found that opposition to the initiative was widespread. The Bay Area was the only region that tilted toward the measure -- and just barely, at 51% to 49%. It lost 54% to 46% in Los Angeles County, and 59% to 41% in the rest of Southern California.
Men and women opposed it. Voters of every race and ethnicity opposed it. Asian American voters were most strongly against it, 62% to 38%, according to the poll conducted by Edison Research for the National Voter Pool, a consortium of the major television news networks and the Associated Press.
Voters 65 and older opposed it by more than 2 to 1. Support was strongest among voters between 18 and 24, who went for it 64% to 36%. Voters between 25 and 29 narrowly backed it, 52% to 48%. But voters under 30 made up just 13% of the electorate, about the same as is typical in a midterm election. In presidential election years, these voters are at least 20% of the turnout.
The poll found that the initiative did not win over the state’s middle-of-the-road voters, who make up the decisive swing vote. Although voters who think of themselves as Democrats went for it, 55% to 45%, nonpartisan and third-party voters went against it, 54% to 46%. Republicans rejected it 70% to 30%. Liberals supported the measure, but both moderates and conservatives sided against it.
Neither income nor education seemed to make a big difference, although voters with a high school degree or less were most strongly opposed, turning 61% to 39% against it.
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?
It was never about fiscal responsibility, that was something made up (like it was with healthcare) to try and capture some people angry about irresponsibility. It did not work and regardless is a complete mirage/outright lie.
They'd be better off selling it as some libertarian ideal, imo. But then they'd lose all the statists who want government to care for people cradle to grave.
-
As of a couple of months ago, possession of less than an ounce in Cali is now an infraction with a $100 fine, not even a misdemeanor. This is why it failed.
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?
It was never about fiscal responsibility, that was something made up (like it was with healthcare) to try and capture some people angry about irresponsibility. It did not work and regardless is a complete mirage/outright lie.
They'd be better off selling it as some libertarian ideal, imo. But then they'd lose all the statists who want government to care for people cradle to grave.
you're right it was never about making any money at all for the state of california. i am completely persuaded by your unfounded statements supported by absolutely no evidence.
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?
It was never about fiscal responsibility, that was something made up (like it was with healthcare) to try and capture some people angry about irresponsibility. It did not work and regardless is a complete mirage/outright lie.
They'd be better off selling it as some libertarian ideal, imo. But then they'd lose all the statists who want government to care for people cradle to grave.
you're right it was never about making any money at all for the state of california. i am completely persuaded by your unfounded statements supported by absolutely no evidence.
pffft
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?
Drug reformers long ago, in an effort to have the perception of the movement migrate from stoned-out hippies vs. cops realized that the better argument for the 'legalization' of marijuana was to affix it a "tax and regulate" title. In fact, the last ditch campaign commercial by Prop 19 proponents said that Prop 19 would 'tax and control marijuana like alcohol, generate billions for local communities, allow police to focus on violent crime and put drug cartels out of business." Had this been even 10 years ago the commercial might have featured Cypress Hill in a smoked-out cadillac rolling down the window telling you to vote "Si" on 19. I think the movement has come a very long way in a short amount of time. IMO, more progress in 5 years than in the 20 before them.
I think they missed the proverbial boat though. Instead of emphasizing the amount of money potentially made by taxing and regulating (remember taxing being one of those buzzwords) I believe that the effort should have been made towards the amount of money currently spent i.e. being added to the deficit for drug enforcement. Deficit hawks were populated in the moderate camp - the ones needed to pass this.
2012 was the year the movement was hoping for anyways, with the belief that older more conservative voters come out for mid-term elections obviously not the constituent that will vote for you.
Assuming that the movement stays unified and that 2012 won't be much better economically I think tax and regulate has a better chance than it did yesterday.
-
i agree with the point about missing the boat. however i think it is all one in the same. but yeah, we will see i suppose.
-
i guess i mean just in general that it was going to lose. just checked the la times and its at 56 to 44 with 18 in. :dunno:
Right. In the desperate race to be first, many outlets are reporting that it's been killed in spite of having less that 1/4 of the vote in. Politico for one.
It will be back in 2012 and will benefit from a higher youth turnout along with the now-better-established legalization front.
It lost 47% to 53%. over 3million voters on both sides. I don't know if you are correct in thinking the 2012 election will get it done. If the economy improves by then there may not be such a big push by fiscally concerned constituents. This may have been the best chance it will ever have. That's just a guess though. What do you think?
Drug reformers long ago, in an effort to have the perception of the movement migrate from stoned-out hippies vs. cops realized that the better argument for the 'legalization' of marijuana was to affix it a "tax and regulate" title. In fact, the last ditch campaign commercial by Prop 19 proponents said that Prop 19 would 'tax and control marijuana like alcohol, generate billions for local communities, allow police to focus on violent crime and put drug cartels out of business." Had this been even 10 years ago the commercial might have featured Cypress Hill in a smoked-out cadillac rolling down the window telling you to vote "Si" on 19. I think the movement has come a very long way in a short amount of time. IMO, more progress in 5 years than in the 20 before them.
I think they missed the proverbial boat though. Instead of emphasizing the amount of money potentially made by taxing and regulating (remember taxing being one of those buzzwords) I believe that the effort should have been made towards the amount of money currently spent i.e. being added to the deficit for drug enforcement. Deficit hawks were populated in the moderate camp - the ones needed to pass this.
2012 was the year the movement was hoping for anyways, with the belief that older more conservative voters come out for mid-term elections obviously not the constituent that will vote for you.
Assuming that the movement stays unified and that 2012 won't be much better economically I think tax and regulate has a better chance than it did yesterday.
This is a properly articulated version of what I was trying to say. Casinos figured this out a while ago (re: tax revenue for schools), and now they are everywhere.
Naturally the people that really want pot legal ("drug reformers" and potheads not fiscal hawks), were a little slow to get the big picture. Can't imagine why...
-
then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.
-
then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.
My point was it's a farse (in your words a "vehicle"). You just preferred to hear it from Paul rather than SD.
-
then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.
My point was it's a farse (in your words a "vehicle"). You just preferred to hear it from Paul rather than SD.
It's not really a farse because passing the bill would have positively impacted the California budget. I'd say it was more of a win-win.
-
then why the hell are you arguing? you seem to think that because tax generation is a vehicle for change that it doesn't actually generate revenue. i recognize that it is a vehicle. just like everything else.
My point was it's a farse (in your words a "vehicle"). You just preferred to hear it from Paul rather than SD.
wrong. its not like i didn't know that it painted a better picture than hippies getting mumped up and forgetting their little bros at school (sorry lil bro). that is a pretty obvious thing. you saying that its a farse means that it doesn't actually do what it says it would do. i don't disagree that it probably won't do all that is promised. but it would do better than what the status quo is doing now. do you think that its benefit is not as much as its cost. and if so what is that cost? i'm not saying its going to be the next jesus savior solution to all economies. i'm just saying that it will do more benefit than harm. which i think is rational. you, however, don't seem to think so. and your basis seems to be that because it will be benefitting someone else that it is a bad idea.
It's not really a farse because passing the bill would have positively impacted the California budget. I'd say it was more of a win-win.
this is essentially my point.
-
:facepalm:
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/03/miron.pot.vote/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
Prop 19 failed in part because many proponents emphasized the wrong arguments for legalization. Many advocates promised major benefits to California's budget because of reduced expenditure on marijuana prohibition and increased revenue from marijuana taxation. Other supporters claimed that Mexican drug violence would fall substantially.
Both claims were overblown. The budgetary benefits, while not insignificant, would have been small compared with California's fiscal mess. Mexican drug violence is mainly associated with the cocaine and methamphetamine trades, as well as from marijuana traffic to other states.
-
The movement has begun :bigtoke:
http://www.kake.com/news/offbeat/headlines/Elementary-school-teacher-allegedly-brought-pot-laced-dish-to-potluck-242059511.html
-
I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day. He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.
-
:D
-
I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day. He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.
Went to a shop in Telluride a few weeks ago. It was a strange and surreal feeling. It got a even more surreal when I got pulled over on the drive back for expired tags. Had to open up the glove box (where all the purchased items were located) which instantly filled the cabin with intense mj smell. To seriously not care one bit about this or the fact that the officer saw what was in the glove compartment made me have some serious LOL's after he left. Heady times, indeed.
protip: the peach rings are awesome, so are the taffies.
-
To seriously not care one bit about this or the fact that the officer saw what was in the glove compartment made me have some serious LOL's after he left. Heady times, indeed.
this is similar to what i enjoyed the most, the strange feeling of freedom when buying weed legally. i got there just before close, so i didn't have time to browse like i wanted to, but after seeing marijuana in a legal setting, it makes non-legal status look even that much more ridiculous.
-
I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day. He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.
I had a nice pineapple in Vancouver about ten years back. It was quite the treat.
Legal thc has a nice clean burn with an intense but controlling high. It's great. I'm anxious to try cooking oils and specialty drinks.
-
I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day. He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.
Went to a shop in Telluride a few weeks ago. It was a strange and surreal feeling. It got a even more surreal when I got pulled over on the drive back for expired tags. Had to open up the glove box (where all the purchased items were located) which instantly filled the cabin with intense mj smell. To seriously not care one bit about this or the fact that the officer saw what was in the glove compartment made me have some serious LOL's after he left. Heady times, indeed.
protip: the peach rings are awesome, so are the taffies.
Your heart still had to be beating out of your chest though, right? Like the first time getting carded by a cop after you're 21
-
I have a Canadian friend who was in Colorado recently and purchased some THC Swedish Fish the other day. He also told me they have rock candy and peach rings too.
Went to a shop in Telluride a few weeks ago. It was a strange and surreal feeling. It got a even more surreal when I got pulled over on the drive back for expired tags. Had to open up the glove box (where all the purchased items were located) which instantly filled the cabin with intense mj smell. To seriously not care one bit about this or the fact that the officer saw what was in the glove compartment made me have some serious LOL's after he left. Heady times, indeed.
protip: the peach rings are awesome, so are the taffies.
Your heart still had to be beating out of your chest though, right? Like the first time getting carded by a cop after you're 21
There was a moment where it definitely was, but then I just got extremely comfortable. To the point where I was inches from joking about it with him.
-
Colorado is such an elite state
-
So, where do pot tourists go to get stoned after they buy?
Can't smoke in hotel room, get fined by hotel. Can't smoke anywhere else as it has same rules as cigs.
I ask because a pothead I know suggested opening a pot friendly boutique hotel there
-
So, where do pot tourists go to get stoned after they buy?
Can't smoke in hotel room, get fined by hotel. Can't smoke anywhere else as it has same rules as cigs.
I ask because a pothead I know suggested opening a pot friendly boutique hotel there
This is actually a legitimate question, and an obvious gap in the legislation. It appears that hotel rooms are not considered to be included in the public realm (which mj use is prohibited), and would be left to the discretion of the hotel itself. However, there are a few competing regulations (Colorado Clean Indoor Act being the main one), which would limit the ability of a hotel to do what your friend has proposed. It's really untested as far as the municipal and state regulations go. For example, if you wanted to start a ranch in which there were several casitas dotted around a large plot of land, the ability to allow guests to smoke on porches or in the residences themselves would be vastly different than if you wanted to open up a hotel in the middle of a city where balconies are in full view of the public. Not sure how it would play with timeshares without doing further research. If I was in a traveling man's situation, I'd probably just get something like this http://www.ploom.com/pax (http://www.ploom.com/pax) and not worry much about getting caught by my hotel, or just buy edibles.
-
limo services offer tours
read that airbnb has really embraced the tourism thing
have heard some hotels have a communal "smoking room" for cigarettes, cigars, pot.
pueblo county is allowing fenced off "smoke gardens" at bars
i think it's something that will gradually get worked out
-
limo services offer tours
read that airbnb has really embraced the tourism thing
have heard some hotels have a communal "smoking room" for cigarettes, cigars, pot.
pueblo county is allowing fenced off "smoke gardens" at bars
i think it's something that will gradually get worked out
yeah, airbnb and vrbo places seem like they would be the best solution for now.
-
Unless you have a bud's house to smoke in or just plan on staying long enough to where a smoking fee is worth it, stick to edibles.
-
You guys really can't figure out where to discretely smoke a little pot?
-
Really don't even have to be particularly discreet in Colorado
-
You guys really can't figure out where to discretely smoke a little pot?
hey bro, some people like to do things within the confines of the law, OK!!!
-
You guys really can't figure out where to discretely smoke a little pot?
I am sure just about everyone can, but why when it's legal? Is it fun sneaking around a parking garage? What if you are an executive who is in town for 2 days and staying at the Westin? You want drive around some neighborhood looking for a place to get out of your car and hide in an alley?
-
You could go in your hotel bathroom with the door closed and let the fan take the smoke outside.
-
just pull the toilet paper roll/rubber band/dryer sheet out of your briefcase :lol:
-
just pull the toilet paper roll/rubber band/dryer sheet out of your briefcase :lol:
Never tried that one.
-
just pull the toilet paper roll/rubber band/dryer sheet out of your briefcase :lol:
Never tried that one.
my results were a complete failure, but i was a young dumbass
-
just pull the toilet paper roll/rubber band/dryer sheet out of your briefcase :lol:
Never tried that one.
my results were a complete failure, but i was a young dumbass
It sounded good on paper. I guess I'll stick with the bathroom exhaust fan since it's proven effective.
-
:thumbs:
-
just pull the toilet paper roll/rubber band/dryer sheet out of your briefcase :lol:
Never tried that one.
my results were a complete failure, but i was a young dumbass
It sounded good on paper. I guess I'll stick with the bathroom exhaust fan since it's proven effective.
went up to the roof of the hotel via fire escape when saying in downtown san diego :D
would recommend
-
You could go in your hotel bathroom with the door closed and let the fan take the smoke outside.
You COULD do a lot of crap, professor.
-
You could go in your hotel bathroom with the door closed and let the fan take the smoke outside.
You COULD do a lot of crap, professor.
Yup, lots of options.
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
prolly not a good idea.
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
prolly not a good idea.
What is the method for giving people DUI's for weed in Colorado? Is it just a field test? Some sort of blood/breath test?
Could I just get super baked at my buddy's house in Durango then play bumper cars on the way to taco bell with absolutely no reprecussions(sp)?
-
I support full legalization. :bigtoke:
Its safer than alcohol and prescription medications.. No recorded deaths in history....Fireitupkansas!
-
the dui test they use is bullshit from my understanding, and can pop you if you've smoked within like a month or something.
-
just pull the toilet paper roll/rubber band/dryer sheet out of your briefcase :lol:
poke some holes in the bottom of a plastic bottle, stuff the bottle with dryer sheets, exhale into the mouth of the bottle.
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
prolly not a good idea.
What is the method for giving people DUI's for weed in Colorado? Is it just a field test? Some sort of blood/breath test?
Could I just get super baked at my buddy's house in Durango then play bumper cars on the way to taco bell with absolutely no reprecussions(sp)?
they do have what is called a DUID (driving under the influence of drugs). the testing is fraught with difficulties, but involves a blood draw and analysis. largely unproven and attackable from a criminal defense standpoint (usually).
decent article explaining some of the struggles...
http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25101187/colorado-marijuana-legalizations-impact-stoned-driving-unknown (http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25101187/colorado-marijuana-legalizations-impact-stoned-driving-unknown)
that being said, the regulations come from a good place. respect that, even if you don't respect the drafting of the law.
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
prolly not a good idea.
What is the method for giving people DUI's for weed in Colorado? Is it just a field test? Some sort of blood/breath test?
Could I just get super baked at my buddy's house in Durango then play bumper cars on the way to taco bell with absolutely no reprecussions(sp)?
they do have what is called a DUID (driving under the influence of drugs). the testing is fraught with difficulties, but involves a blood draw and analysis. largely unproven and attackable from a criminal defense standpoint (usually).
decent article explaining some of the struggles...
http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25101187/colorado-marijuana-legalizations-impact-stoned-driving-unknown (http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_25101187/colorado-marijuana-legalizations-impact-stoned-driving-unknown)
that being said, the regulations come from a good place. respect that, even if you don't respect the drafting of the law.
Don't worry, I've got a bike(with wheels).
-
Yeah. Stoned driving is definitely not harmless and deserves to be punishable by law.
-
Couldn't they just make "members only" clubs where they allow you to smoke inside? Isn't that basically what cigar bars do? Pay a fee at the door and become a member go inside and smoke.
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
It's just like gambling; it's only a matter of time before the government gets involved. Too much tax money they are missing out on.
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
It's just like gambling; it's only a matter of time before the government gets involved. Too much tax money they are missing out on.
KS will probably be the 2nd to last state(behind OK or TX) to legalize it, see liquor laws.
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
prolly not a good idea.
What is the method for giving people DUI's for weed in Colorado? Is it just a field test? Some sort of blood/breath test?
Could I just get super baked at my buddy's house in Durango then play bumper cars on the way to taco bell with absolutely no reprecussions(sp)?
they do have what is called a DUID (driving under the influence of drugs).
Do they call it a "Duuuuude"?
-
When I go to CO I just smoke while driving. DGAF.
prolly not a good idea.
What is the method for giving people DUI's for weed in Colorado? Is it just a field test? Some sort of blood/breath test?
Could I just get super baked at my buddy's house in Durango then play bumper cars on the way to taco bell with absolutely no reprecussions(sp)?
they do have what is called a DUID (driving under the influence of drugs).
Do they call it a "Duuuuude"?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FI4VoVvq.jpg&hash=f4862145d93045d3404b7aaade53536a38d4a418)
-
Couldn't they just make "members only" clubs where they allow you to smoke inside? Isn't that basically what cigar bars do? Pay a fee at the door and become a member go inside and smoke.
i'm pretty sure that these are specifically prohibited, but i'm not sure. will check.
-
If I was a tourist, I'd just buy a box of brownies or something I didn't need to smoke.
-
If I was a tourist, I'd just buy a box of brownies or something I didn't need to smoke.
when i went, they didn't allow out of state people to buy edibles. i don't know if that was a store rule or a state one.
-
If I was a tourist, I'd just buy a box of brownies or something I didn't need to smoke.
when i went, they didn't allow out of state people to buy edibles. i don't know if that was a store rule or a state one.
:shakesfist:
-
If I was a tourist, I'd just buy a box of brownies or something I didn't need to smoke.
when i went, they didn't allow out of state people to buy edibles. i don't know if that was a store rule or a state one.
:love:
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flotuscannabis.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F11%2FPB-Budda.jpg&hash=0922f62ff73fb3a840fe6ca8adcd17577dc981f5)
-
If I was a tourist, I'd just buy a box of brownies or something I didn't need to smoke.
when i went, they didn't allow out of state people to buy edibles. i don't know if that was a store rule or a state one.
:shakesfist:
can confirm this is not a state rule.
-
If I was a tourist, I'd just buy a box of brownies or something I didn't need to smoke.
when i went, they didn't allow out of state people to buy edibles. i don't know if that was a store rule or a state one.
:shakesfist:
can confirm this is not a state rule.
well god damnit
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
It's just like gambling; it's only a matter of time before the government gets involved. Too much tax money they are missing out on.
KS will probably be the 2nd to last state(behind OK or TX) to legalize it, see liquor laws.
While KS still has fairly conservative liquor laws, there are several states with more conservative laws. I'm currently in Indiana and couldn't buy alcohol today because it's a Sunday. I know Pennsylvania has some pretty strange laws. And then there's the south...
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
It's just like gambling; it's only a matter of time before the government gets involved. Too much tax money they are missing out on.
KS will probably be the 2nd to last state(behind OK or TX) to legalize it, see liquor laws.
While KS still has fairly conservative liquor laws, there are several states with more conservative laws. I'm currently in Indiana and couldn't buy alcohol today because it's a Sunday. I know Pennsylvania has some pretty strange laws. And then there's the south...
It's not uncommon in the northeast for beer to be exclusively sold in one store and liquor to be sold exclusively in another.
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
It's just like gambling; it's only a matter of time before the government gets involved. Too much tax money they are missing out on.
KS will probably be the 2nd to last state(behind OK or TX) to legalize it, see liquor laws.
While KS still has fairly conservative liquor laws, there are several states with more conservative laws. I'm currently in Indiana and couldn't buy alcohol today because it's a Sunday. I know Pennsylvania has some pretty strange laws. And then there's the south...
It's not uncommon in the northeast for beer to be exclusively sold in one store and liquor to be sold exclusively in another.
Yes. Very weird. In Pennsylvania all wine and spirit stores are state owned. If you want beer you have to go to a beer distributor. Even more odd (but kind of awesome) is that bars and restaurants can sell you six and twelve packs but the beer stores can only sell cases and kegs.
Back to the original topic... I was talking to a law enforcement guy at a bar and he was telling me that legalization in KS could come sooner than you might think, especially if Missouri legalizes it. He said this is largely because so much of their resources are being used to fight the weed coming in from Colorado (instead of meth/coke/heroin) that it is becoming an increasingly expensive and seemingly impossible fight to win.
-
Hopefully KS will get its head out of its ass someday and do the same. That way TBL can focus on arresting real criminals.
It's just like gambling; it's only a matter of time before the government gets involved. Too much tax money they are missing out on.
KS will probably be the 2nd to last state(behind OK or TX) to legalize it, see liquor laws.
While KS still has fairly conservative liquor laws, there are several states with more conservative laws. I'm currently in Indiana and couldn't buy alcohol today because it's a Sunday. I know Pennsylvania has some pretty strange laws. And then there's the south...
It's not uncommon in the northeast for beer to be exclusively sold in one store and liquor to be sold exclusively in another.
Yes. Very weird. In Pennsylvania all wine and spirit stores are state owned. If you want beer you have to go to a beer distributor. Even more odd (but kind of awesome) is that bars and restaurants can sell you six and twelve packs but the beer stores can only sell cases and kegs.
Back to the original topic... I was talking to a law enforcement guy at a bar and he was telling me that legalization in KS could come sooner than you might think, especially if Missouri legalizes it. He said this is largely because so much of their resources are being used to fight the weed coming in from Colorado (instead of meth/coke/heroin) that it is becoming an increasingly expensive and seemingly impossible fight to win.
yeah, i don't buy the "kansas will be the second to last state" argument. "sin" laws in kansas are pretty average, and personal freedom (unless you're gay, but that's a different issue) is something that really resonates with the most voters. the last 10=20 years or so, changes have been happening to blue laws and casinos to drive money away from MO and back to kansas, and most everyone is happy with the results.
if MO legalizes it, then there is just no way that KS won't succumb to the financial pressure. it's not going to be next year, but i believe KS will be one of the first 25.
-
If they can't point to the bible for opposition to weed, it just might pass sooner than later.
-
Texas will be the last to legalize weed. We still don't have casinos. And last year they momentarily voted out the lottery until they realized they would need to raise taxes to cover the $2.2B that would be lost by lottery revenue.
-
Kansas' new casino law is that if you win $20,000 over the course of the year while losing $50,000 then you have to claim that you gained $20,000 when you report your taxes. Missouri does not have that law. So I don't get the argument that we're trying to drive Missourians here because we have less harsh sin taxes.
-
Kansas' new casino law is that if you win $20,000 over the course of the year while losing $50,000 then you have to claim that you gained $20,000 when you report your taxes. Missouri does not have that law. So I don't get the argument that we're trying to drive Missourians here because we have less harsh sin taxes.
The only way they would know if you won more than $20,000 is if you won it on a slot machine or something that required them to go through a special process.
You don't show a players card or any ID when you return your chips for cash so they would have no way of tracking it otherwise.
*Fun Fact* ben ji's dad takes advantage of this, he will buy in for a couple hundred, play some hands then cash his chips out. He then goes and sits down at a new table and buys back in....To the casino it looks like he bought in for $200, lost all his money and bought back in for another $200 etc etc etc. In reality its the same $200 being recycled again and again... He does this to get more free comps from the casino and calls it "Recycling"
-
Kansas' new casino law is that if you win $20,000 over the course of the year while losing $50,000 then you have to claim that you gained $20,000 when you report your taxes. Missouri does not have that law. So I don't get the argument that we're trying to drive Missourians here because we have less harsh sin taxes.
the goal is more to keep money from going over to missouri. the same with sunday liquor sales. both of these have been pretty successful. the casinos in kansas are successful enough that MO changed their casino laws (the 500 dollar loss limit) to try and get customers back.
right now, colorado is getting *some* tax dollars from KS residents crossing the border. being a good 6-8 hours from eastern kansas, and even a few hours to denver from western kansas right now means that it's probably not a huge amount. if MO legalized it, you're going to see a massive amount of money being given to MO from the 1+ million people that live within an hour of the border, KS will definitely take note of that.
-
Kansas' new casino law is that if you win $20,000 over the course of the year while losing $50,000 then you have to claim that you gained $20,000 when you report your taxes. Missouri does not have that law. So I don't get the argument that we're trying to drive Missourians here because we have less harsh sin taxes.
Don't you get to subtract your gambling losses from the gambling winnings?
My cousin just won $23,000 on a slot machine in Oklahoma. I wonder what their laws are.
-
Kansas' new casino law is that if you win $20,000 over the course of the year while losing $50,000 then you have to claim that you gained $20,000 when you report your taxes. Missouri does not have that law. So I don't get the argument that we're trying to drive Missourians here because we have less harsh sin taxes.
Don't you get to subtract your gambling losses from the gambling winnings?
No, that's my point. As of last month you can no longer subtract losses.
-
I'm making the pilgrimage to the Cannabis Cup in Denver on 4/20 this year. I might not come home, guys.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHdNaOW1.gif&hash=8098a71aee52952f76c861b5e3c90e171f4c7330)
-
good luck friend, i will keep you in my prayers.
-
good luck friend, i will keep you in my prayers.
I'll tweet lots of pics!
-
maybe have a safe word or something?
-
maybe have a safe word or something?
mine is blueberry pancakes.
-
maybe have a safe word or something?
mine is blueberry pancakes.
not good for these situations. too common of a thing thing that gets said at hungry times.
-
maybe have a safe word or something?
mine is blueberry pancakes.
not good for these situations. too common of a thing thing that gets said at hungry times.
do you even Ving Rhames, bro?
-
Kansas' new casino law is that if you win $20,000 over the course of the year while losing $50,000 then you have to claim that you gained $20,000 when you report your taxes. Missouri does not have that law. So I don't get the argument that we're trying to drive Missourians here because we have less harsh sin taxes.
Don't you get to subtract your gambling losses from the gambling winnings?
No, that's my point. As of last month you can no longer subtract losses.
Oh well then my cousin is screwed. What happens if you live in Kansas but win in Oklahoma?
-
State income tax, lol.