You can have My blessings with regards to Pot and Hash. I tried it 3 times and made Me sick. How anyone can stand that shit has more intestinal fortitude than I do. More power to You.

Larry

hey dude...43 bill value is because of the illegality...once legalized every tom dick and joe will grow their own....unlike cigs people can smoke home grown...

More than a few years ago, a compatriot of mine presented me with a theory on the possible impact of leagalizing/decriminalizing mary-jane. The basis was leagalize and tax the living crap out of it (for store purchases at least, kinda like they do for alky, ciggies and gas currently). People would still buy it (if they don't grow it on their own, true, but they'd still need to get the seeds, so I don't see why you couldn't tax heavy there as well), in spite of the taxation, and the revs generated could go towards repayment of obligations (SS, Medicare, the interest on all the loans we have outside, and so on).

I don't much like the idea myself admittedly (being a Loonytarian, taxation makes my skin crawl to begin with), but as he presented the idea (which was far more eloquent than my own words above), it made sense.

Honestly, why do we still fight the "controlled substance war"? People will still get them, kill each other for them, and kill themselves doing them. Unless they harm somebody else in their stupidity, hell, let them do what they like.

In 1910 the Whiskey Tax provided 40% of the revenue to the US treasury. Faced with the probability of prohibition the Income Tax was instituted to make up for the lost revenue.

While it would be possible for people to grow their own, you could require a license for growers, and restrict the areas where it could be grown to limit its accessibility to underage kids.

That would the logical approach.

I don't see a libertarian objection to a consumption tax. The Framers obviously favored the tax on whiskey as well as tariffs on imported goods.

The real upside to legalizing cannabis would the growing of hemp which produces more biomass per acre than any other crop, and grows well on marginal cropland with almost zero input. Oil from the seed would offset if not eliminate imports, and the fiber can used for building material, etc.

OTOH, prohibition is a disaster.

Somebody's buying it, may as well legalize and tax it!

Larry M, that's probably because the shit you smoked most likely sucked!

Is it 4:20 yet?

People would still buy it (if they don't grow it on their own, true, but they'd still need to get the seeds, so I don't see why you couldn't tax heavy there as well) .LetUsReason

Um...I don't think you could make any money from taxing it. This stuff is called "weed" for a reason. It grows like wildfire. If it were legal, then trying to sell marijuana in a store would be like trying to sell dandelions or crabgrass in a store. Anybody with a yard, or a few buckets filled with dirt, could grow all they need. Friends would be literally giving pounds of it to their friends. Few people would still need to buy it. The "street value" would drop to near zero.

But as a "dangerous gateway drug" and "financial tool of terrorists" it is a huge money-maker. It's madness, Reefer Madness I tell you!

Kerrin,

once legalized every tom dick and joe will grow their own

Growing the stuff is easy, growing it well requires some serious equipment and horticultural knowledge. My prediction is that old women with green thumbs will become wealthy very fast.

"Anybody with a yard, or a few buckets filled with dirt, could grow all they need."
Posted by jeaubleau at 2006-12-18 01:07 PM


YEAH! Same thing could be said for eggs, and chicken, and beef critters and tobacco and vegetables and many other things for that matter. I mean anyone can go buy a calf for 75 bucks and raise it in the yard to eventually fill their freezer (with hundreds of dollars worth of beef) ---- all it takes is some hay and water.

Since the prohibition against it is obviously not working and costing us billions in an attempt at enforcement we should covert the DEA to immigration and solve two problems and make tax dollars too. It would take a lot of work off the police too. Plus I could get high at home and not worry about getting busted.

Plus I could get high at home and not worry about getting busted.

Posted by danni at 2006-12-18 01:19 PM | Reply


How many people do you reckon are arrested for smoking pot in their homes? I'd guess it's less than the number of people maimed while humming.

Jeau-
Have you ever seen the movie Reefer Madness? I saw it years ago on USA's Night Flight in the 80's and saw it in the video store a year or two ago. It's a hoot!

101,

How many people do you reckon are arrested for smoking pot in their homes?

It's more likely than you think. I almost got busted when the police were canvasing my area during a murder investigation.

Same thing could be said for eggs, and chicken, and beef critters and tobacco and vegetables and many other things for that matter .RedNeckVille

Tell you what brother, I'll take a couple of seeds (free from the ashtray) that have sprouted after being in a wet paper towel ($0.06) for two weeks. I'll put them in a few buckets of garden soil ($18.00) in a sunny window. Every two or three days, I will splash them with water (free) and spin the buckets (2 minutes). Mother Nature pretty much does the rest, and the end product will be quite useable.

Now, let me know how that compares with the time, expense, and useability of the chickens, hens, cows, and tobacco that you raise on your window sill.

ever seen the movie Reefer Madness? OOHRAH

Yes. If you have only seen the original (1936) then I urge you to see the musical (2005) with Steven Weber. Total Gut Buster!

YEAH! Same thing could be said for eggs, and chicken, and beef critters ...RED....damn ran right out planted an egg...no complaint...damn chicken and beefer put up one hell of a fight.had to choke the chicken and bash the beefer between the eyes with heavy shovel...they stayed planted.can't wait til spring. how much do they yield...do i need to water and fertilize. can't wait for them home grown buffalo wings and steak.yummmmmmmm

"had to choke the chicken and bash the beefer "

This thread just took another road.

Why should we spend billions trying to fight it? We don't learn from the past. I guess most of us don't read history. We have lost the war on poverty and the war on drugs qand we can't afford the war on terror because of it.

People could grow their own. They grow their own veggies, but the actual number of people who do is small. They could grow their own pot today, but they still buy it. Considering the risk involved in buying it, it would make sense for there to be more grower, but there are not. NEver underestimate man's desire to get someone else to do the work. Legalizing it would be a tax boom.

Since the prohibition against it is obviously not working and costing us billions in an attempt at enforcement we should covert the DEA to immigration and solve two problems and make tax dollars too. It would take a lot of work off the police too. Plus I could get high at home and not worry about getting busted.

Posted by danni

---

I'm marking 12/18/06 on my calander..."Danni posts something I agree with" day.

Um...I don't think you could make any money from taxing it. This stuff is called "weed" for a reason. It grows like wildfire. If it were legal, then trying to sell marijuana in a store would be like trying to sell dandelions or crabgrass in a store. Anybody with a yard, or a few buckets filled with dirt, could grow all they need. Friends would be literally giving pounds of it to their friends. Few people would still need to buy it. The "street value" would drop to near zero.

There's a whole bunch of problems with this argument. First of all it's legal to brew your own beer, distill your own whiskey/vodka, etc.. but most people dont do it because people just don't have time for it. It comes down to a matter of convenience, and not everybody is able to grow with success. Think about the people in the big cities, producing a regular crop from their shaded balconies and 20 sq ft back yards are hardly the optimum growing conditions.

People would gladly buy prepackaged joints from a store, just as they would a bottle of Absolut or a case of budweiser.. it's just a lot easier. The government could impose rules for safe growing, product quality (although, the market would decide this for in large part,) etc..

And if it kids did get their hands on store bought pot (like they do with beer and liquor,) at least they would have to worry about it being laced with some other interesting drugs.

SNIPER...can you just hear the smoking nazis on this one?course a little secondhand mj would possibly mellow out their tight ass.hey wait ...on second thought the libs probably grew up on mj...the one truly rightious second hand smoke.

How many people do you reckon are

Not against the law in Oregon.

Legalizing it would be a tax boom.

Posted by kanrei

Our govt is large enough. We can substantiate that there is no limit our govt can go with spending and thus, increasing it's size. I'm not interested in increasing it's size any more.

kanrei....its a small fine for a small possesion . anything under an ounce is a parking ticket.....growing plants they bust you for distribution and for the amount of weed on the plant. its much safer to buy small quantities than to risk a sales bust. i can grow legaly with a oregon medical card but since my wife is a romanian immigrant and not a citizen..the risk of growing is waaaay to high. the state will leave us alone but the feds could still screw up our lives so untill its legal i will countinue to buy small amounts and only risk a mistermeaner. distribution is a felony

Research - - Dupont - Marijuana

Growing a weed is simple, growing it well enough to get flowering buds with a high THC content is much more difficult. Home beer and winemaking kits have been around forever, and the number of people who make their own are a fraction of a % of the drinking consumer.

If legalized, people will rather pay $10.00 for some Trinity or Humboldt then to try to grow and smoke their own.

If legalized, people will rather pay $10.00 for some Trinity or Humboldt then to try to grow and smoke their own.

Horseshit. It is too easy to grow killer shit. Shit you don't even think exists.

It's just a weed after all. Start with a good strain and give it good light and good food you'll never look at weed the same again.

Oh and a bottle of Co2 helps A LOT!!!

503,
It depends. I got busted in Nevada with 2.3 grams and was charged with felony possession. I got busted in Florida with 3.5 grams and the cops made me destroy it.

My main point was that people would almost always buy it over growing it.

My main point was that people would almost always buy it over growing it.

This is true, but the same thing can be said of hamburgers.

got ya kanrei... i wouldnt drive thru utah or texas with a seed in my car so i can see your point.

Pleasantville,
I'm usually in agreement with you, but your "near miss" changes nothing in my book. Nobody but a true douchebag gets ticketed for smoking weed in their own home.
Perhaps my beast friend in the world is a copper in buffalo...He nor anyone he knows has ever even so much as written a ticket for possesion. At the VERY MOST they make them spill it out, but they generall give it back to them if the only thing they had was "gas".
Each commuity is different, but there are bigger fish to fry than a guy smoking gas in his own abode.

All they have to do is require a license to grow it. If it were legal the market would probably expand. Another factor involves drug testing. I've read that people have switched from pot to crack because THC remains in your system for 30 days, but coke flushes out in a day or so so there's less chance of being detected.

The fact is that people like to get buzzed, and pot is relatively benign by comparison to alcohol and other drugs. But now the drug war has been expanded to the point that nearly every bureaucracy in the federal government receives funding for some aspect involving prohibition.

I don't think it will ever be legal.

Mike,
We need to fight the law smartly and logically. It took an amendment to the Constitution to make alcohol illegal so logic dictates that it would take an amendment to make drugs illegal. No amendment has been passed so therefore the drug laws are unconstitutional.

There has only been the 1937 (I think that was teh year) Tax Stamp law, which did not make pot illegal, only required a stamp to show taxes had been paid. They never printed the stamps so no one could buy it, but that is it as far as Federal laws making it illegal I believe.

"Nobody but a true douchebag gets ticketed for smoking weed in their own home."

Where I live there's a significant number of people busted on information provided by their neighbors. And I got that from a deputy sheriff.

"Now, let me know how that compares with the time, expense, and useability of the chickens, hens, cows, and tobacco that you raise on your window sill."
Posted by jeaubleau at 2006-12-18 01:42 PM

YEAH! Chickens go in the yard, not the window sill. Anyway, chickens go in the yard --- that's it except for collecting the eggs and chopping a head of every now and then.

But you said yard "Anybody with a yard" to be exact so growing a cow on your window sill is a different proposition entirely.

Do you wish to rephrase since you changed the perimeters of the assertion after the fact?

So I continue, cows go in the field (or yard) and eat grass. Does that mean anybody can grow Osaka beef? Not hardly!
Anybody can germinate some shwag, hell, you might eve get lucky and grow some decent weed by accident, (provided its female. from good stock and you know what "day sensitive" means) but good weed, stinky, sticky two hit taste extravaganza takes some serious skill to grow consistently.

"busted on information provided by their neighbors"

Which is why you must always be nice to your neigbors.

Where I live there's a significant number of people busted on information provided by their neighbors. And I got that from a deputy sheriff.

Posted by MikeSiesel at 2006-12-18 02:33 PM | Reply


You mean to tell me that cops bust people for smoking pot in their homes because a neighbor told on them?...I was born at night Mike, but...

Wow, what shitty neighbors.

Anybody can germinate some shwag, hell, you might eve get lucky and grow some decent weed by accident, (provided its female. from good stock and you know what "day sensitive" means) but good weed, stinky, sticky two hit taste extravaganza takes some serious skill to grow consistently.

Posted by Redneckville

Finally, redneck illustrates actual knowledge of something.

Not shocking that it is on this subject.

Can anyone think of something else that's actually more dangerous because it's illegal rather than the other way round?

Do you wish to rephrase since you changed the perimeters of the assertion after the fact? .RedNeckVille

Well, I'm not sure what all that fancy language means, but if your gonna let me change around some parameters (or perimeters), then I would kick in a few extra bucks for some grow lights, plant food, stainless-steel scissors, and a book on "How to grow marijuana".

BTW: I'm pretty sure you knew I was foolin' about growing the cattle on your window sill. The cattle goes in the bathtub.

Ask Ed is all anyone really needs to grow. It was written by High Times' editor and is a collection of his best advice for growing. Given that I do not even have a brown thumb let alone a green one I have yet to ever try it, but it is the bible of growers.

Can anyone think of something else that's actually more dangerous because it's illegal rather than the other way round?


Prostitution

"The cattle goes in the bathtub."
Posted by jeaubleau at 2006-12-18 03:06 PM


YEAH! Glad you cleared that up!

Prostitution

Posted by Manypaths at 2006-12-18 03:47 PM

Good call Manypaths. Any others?

"Can anyone think of something else that's actually more dangerous because it's illegal rather than the other way round?"


YEAH! Abortion.

yes!......panchoV

A little truth added always helps the "responsible" but scares the

"....tootsie-good-shoes...."

& is refered to as..."conspiracy theory?"


By such is a nation destroyed, as is this one.....by those too scared to try to know.

Prostitution

Abortion

Let's stick with "Things Associated with the Vaginal Cavatiy" for $600 Alex

Let's stick with "Things Associated with the Vaginal Cavatiy" for $600 Alex

Posted by Manypaths

How about just sticking with things illegal. redsamidiotville can't even do that.

I must have smoked too much weed.

Is there a debate in here some where?

The only connection I see between:

Pot - Prostitution - Abortion

. . is 90% of those who think they are experts - have never had any experience with.

"How about just sticking with things illegal. redsamidiotville can't even do that."
Posted by eberly at 2006-12-18 04:11 PM


YEAH! Quick ---- somebody tell Nevada that prostitution is illegal!

The only connection I see between:

Pot - Prostitution - Abortion

What about the fact that you can set all 3 on fire?

The only connection I see between:

Pot - Prostitution Abortion
Posted by Oscar at 2006-12-18 04:15 PM

YEAH! Are all ingredients for a good party?

YEAH! Quick ---- somebody tell Nevada that prostitution is illegal!

Posted by Redneckville

You posted "abortion" dipshit.

Here in beautiful Kentucky (the long-time #3 on the production hit parade), the going rate for an ounce of medium-grade homegrown in the 1970s was... are you ready for this?.... $10! You could toke all summer for 10 bucks! People refused to pay more than that, no matter how good it was. Everyone assumed that "imported" was better, like they do about most things. People are dumb sometimes.

Then word got out that Kentucky reefer was actually in high (er, pardon the pun) demand in stylish New York and elsewhere, and boom, the economics changed. Now, the same bag would go for at least $400. (I'm just estimating here, because I never buy it anymore.)

Anytime there's a lot of money to be made, the market will be strong.

People like to get a buzz on. Witness beverage alcohol. Bars are busy. Marijuana is not going away, so I wish we'd figure out how to regulate it and let people smoke it. Nothing is harmless, but pot is pretty damn close.

OK Eb. That made me laugh.

Sorry Red.......

"How about just sticking with things illegal"
Posted by eberly at 2006-12-18 04:11 PM

YEAH! Of which I replied
"Quick ---- somebody tell Nevada that prostitution is illegal"

But anyway, the question did not ask what was legal or illegal but rather what is more dangerous illegal than legal.
I mean I know I have gotten under your skin, its obvious for all to see, but gee wiz, stop making yourself look stupid in the process!

"OK Eb. That made me laugh.

Sorry Red.......
Posted by Manypaths at 2006-12-18 04:32 PM

YEAH! No offense taken --- she makes me laugh too.

You post this as a response and you accuse me of looking stupid????

Not even a nice try dipshit......


"Can anyone think of something else that's actually more dangerous because it's illegal rather than the other way round?"


YEAH! Abortion.

Posted by Redneckville

Manypaths-

Red is right, it is very difficult to grow good buds, even if you have great seed stock and imported soil from Trinity County.

Like I said before, people can make their own vodka out of potatos, but no one ever bothers.

Few people would grow their own, just as few people make thier own wine or beer.

The quality would go up, and prices would go down, even as the tax burden on us all would be lightened.

It will never be legalized in this country. That's a bit too much freedom for America.

It will never be legalized in this country.

If only the conservative party would allow a free market!

"The quality would go up, and prices would go down, even as the tax burden on us all would be lightened"

Where and how could you conclude that your tax burden would be lightened? What evidence exists that any such thing would happen.

Look at the size of our treasury. Look at it 15 years ago. As the size of the treasury goes up....so will your tax burden.

If only the conservative party would allow a free market!

Posted by Pleasantville

Ask hillary or Edwards or Obama if pot should be legalized. What will their response be?

America's Largest Cash Crop is Weed

If that's the case why does it take me a couple of weeks to hook up for some for the Holidays?

ROC,

Kanrei did mention Ask Ed and that is very accurate. It's a great book. Through the years I spent growing 'Quality Bud' I'lll say that all you really need is a rental property, the right gear and seeds and the balls big enough to pull it off.

What I learned:

Stick with Organic fertlizers. Chemicals can and will 'burn' your plants.

You need to have the right light spectrum for the different stages of growth/bloom.

1000 HPS (High-pressure sodium) for the budding cycle. 400 Metal Halides ofr the vegetative stage.

Co2. What plants breathe. (This is one of the reasons that 'talking' to your plants make for healthy plants. You are exhaling Co2 on them)

Leave them the hell alone. Pot is a weed and will grow just fine with the proper amunt of light, food and water. Let them do their thing.

Where people blow it is cutting them too early and/or curing the buds ineffectively.

I'll tell you, I live in Oregon. We have some of the best weed in the country and lots of it. The stuff that I used to produce remains the headiest and sweetest stuff that I have ever come across. Maybe a little biased but am a connoisseur first and foremost.

Selling pussy isn't ileagl. All you need is a weding stamp. They are good in any state.

Ask hillary or Edwards or Obama if pot should be legalized. What will their response be?


I think once my generation starts running for office you will see a drastic change on the marijuana outlook. And someone said it earlier on this thread, if people want marijuana legalized then they need to get a lobbying group together that will do battle with the cotton industry and others who find the legalization of marijuana a threat. I don't include the religious right because they will be powerless, hopefully.

I think once my generation starts running for office you will see a drastic change on the marijuana outlook. And someone said it earlier on this thread, if people want marijuana legalized then they need to get a lobbying group together that will do battle with the cotton industry and others who find the legalization of marijuana a threat. I don't include the religious right because they will be powerless, hopefully.

Posted by taxman

The main problem with that is that Marijuana is illegal. I would love to hang a big "leglize pot" banner on my house or put a big "I love weed" bumper sticker on my car, but guess what, I'll get busted. It's a big catch 22 that keeps many from showing support for the cause.

Oh and a bottle of Co2 helps A LOT!!!

That's it! Throw your seeds in 2007 and we will wipe Global Warming Out! All the Marijuana Plants will need the CO2

"Selling pussy isn't ileagl. All you need is a weding stamp. They are good in any state.

Posted by Sniper at 2006-12-18 06:42 PM "

If selling is legal and sex is legal then why isn't selling sex legal? Somethings I will never understand.

"If selling is legal and sex is legal then why isn't selling sex legal?"

That sounds like a George Carlin.

It is in Amsterdam.

on that note...I'd be one of the first to open a hash cafe, once it's legal, and yes you can bet your sweet bippy it will :)

"That sounds like a George Carlin.

Posted by happyending"

Hey I think your right! I never knew who said that until now...Thanks

The only connection I see between:

Pot - Prostitution - Abortion

What about the fact that you can set all 3 on fire?

Posted by Manypaths at 2006-12-18 04:18 PM | Reply | Flag

Yeah-but you can't keep an aborted fetus lit-and the prostitutes don't give off enough smoke.....

/flogs Frank with a large trout for that one.

"Tell you what brother, I'll take a couple of seeds (free from the ashtray) that have sprouted after being in a wet paper towel ($0.06) for two weeks. I'll put them in a few buckets of garden soil ($18.00) in a sunny window. Every two or three days, I will splash them with water (free) and spin the buckets (2 minutes). Mother Nature pretty much does the rest, and the end product will be quite useable."

What a load of crap. No "window" will give you enough sunlight to grow actual smokeable marijuana. Most people use extremely bright lights, which happen to be very difficult to hide. Growing marijuana in your house is not as easy as growing a chia pet. You should probably stick to those magic growing animals you throw in the tub.

No "window" will give you enough sunlight to grow actual smokeable marijuana .Joe

You're right Joe, and I conceeded in my next post that it does require more than just a tiny flower pot on the window sill (hence my reference to grow lights), but my point is that it is easy enough and affordable enough for almost anybody to do within their living quarters.

You should probably stick to those magic growing animals..

You sound a little upset. Sorry if I hit a sore spot, I meant no offense.

Joe's always upset about something, Jeau. Don't pay attention to it. They don't call him Angry Joe for nothing.

It's not a sore spot. I just think it's funny that you talked out of your ass for an entire paragraph and then claimed to have been "joking" after everyone knew you were full of shit. And of course there's always bill to jump in and give his valuable 2 cents. What a goddamn loser.

Hemp for use in clothes(and clean burning) WOULD be a serious boon to our economy and environment.

But Big business won't have it.

Well Joe you would know about talking out of one's ass. You're the Drudge expert at it. Ignorant little loud mouth.

"Big business won't have it."

Why couldn't "big business" be the first one in on this new, lucrative market? Isn't "big business" always looking to expand?

Big business, once it gets a death grip on any part of the market, keeps going to the well until it's dry.

There's such a large amount of money in Oil right now, that most big businesses dont want to take the risks for new energy, since theres a big pile of cash right now in the status quo.

This is the oldest story in the country. We need to eliminate the DEA and hire illegal alliens in their place. We could hire 50 times as many and have some of them watch the border. This way they could actually pay for their health care. The original DEA's or ODEA could them pick themselves up from their boot straps like the Rest of the Republicans claim they do. Or they can compete on wages. I don't think the results could be worse.

I also feel pot is not made legal only to keep the price up

I have a story to tell as this topic hits very close to home.. I live in Oregon and I have family members and friends that smoke and/or grow weed. It is a big part of the culture here.

One of my family members grows and sells weed for a living as does his next door neighbor, whom he is friends with. One night while watching TV, his friend arrives at his door with his throat slit. Apparently, 6 gun men broke into his house to steal his profits. When the neighbor wouldn't divulge the combination to his safe, they hung him upside down and torchered him for an hour and eventually cut his throat. The guy barely survived. On the way home from the hospital, my family member decided to get his weed and cash out of the house in case these people or the police came to his house. He loaded it into a duffle bag and walked out the front door. Plain clothes police officers were there waiting. They did not identify themselves as police and immediately opened fire mortally wounding his dog and nearly hitting my family member. The police would not euthanize the dog and it took 30 minutes for it to die as my family member watched. They claimed it was against police procedure to finish the job, but apparently it was OK to shoot completely unprovoked and without identifying themselves.

When the neighbor regained consciousness, he identified one of the assailants. When police arrived at the person's house, they found he had been burned alive.

So, we have 1 dead person, 1 dead dog, 1 critically wounded person, and 2 people going to jail for a long time over a nearly harmless drug. This is the exact same kind of shit that alcohol prohibition caused and these types of incedents happen everyday in this country.

It just doesn't make any sense to keep up this way.. As my favorite quote states:

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

And another story, from quite a few years ago..

One of my best friends was living in California with another friend. They needed a roommate and put an ad in the paper. The found a guy that seemed perfect and he moved in.

One night while at home watching TV, 2 masked men entered through the sliding glass door in the living room. One had a gun and he put it to my friends head. More concerning was the other guy who had a hatchet. The duck taped my friend and went into the roommates room and took $35,000 in cash. Apparently, their roommate sold pot and they didn't know it. Fortunately, my friend was not harmed. Another incedent that would have never happened if it were legal.

duct tape that is..

Where and how could you conclude that your tax burden would be lightened? What evidence exists that any such thing would happen.

Look at the size of our treasury. Look at it 15 years ago. As the size of the treasury goes up....so will your tax burden.

Posted by eberly at 2006-12-18 04:57 PM



Even if the tax burden goes up, with legalized marijuana there would be more money flowing into the treasury. If you just applied the marijuana tax money to the national debt, the national debt would be reduced by the amount of marijuana tax. Any increase in tax revenue from sources not already taxed would reduce the burden on us all. How can you figure otherwise. To say that putting more money into the treasury would not reduce the tax burden, would be as foolish as saying reducing the money going to the treasury would not increase the tax burden. If that were true, the govt could eliminate all taxes, and our burden would be the same.

To say putting more money in the treasury wouldn't reduce the tax burden is like saying rain won't help a drought.

The problem with growing your own pot isn't the growing process---the problem is the smell. When the plants get big, they will stink up your whole house and part of the neighborhood.

Had a friend throw away some seeds in his backyard in Florida, next thing you know he had 6 foot high pot plants. Packaged properly it was worth 100 bucks a lid in the 70's. A true Americana cash crop.

What I don't understand is why it's illegal. Tell me a large shot of Jack Daniels isn't worse for you than say a large doobie of Cal sensimilla. And how many pot smokers have you heard get lung cancer? Not many. I have even heard it staves of deminia, and we all know it helps with nasuae for cancer patients.

Car and Driver did a report comparing alcholol to grass, using their writers as test pilots. Nobody failed sobriety driving test on pot, and some drivers actually improved. Why can't a coke head, or is that choke head pres, get the fda to lossen up alittle already?

"And how many pot smokers have you heard get lung cancer?"

A recent major study showed that there is no link between pot and lung cancer. They found that some component in the weed prevented damage from being done to the lungs.

The problem with growing your own pot isn't the growing process

No, it is the electric bill. Police regularly monitor electric bills for conspicuously high rates.

To say putting more money in the treasury wouldn't reduce the tax burden is like saying rain won't help a drought.

Unless all the rain lands in the ocean. You falsely assume that your government would spend the extra revenue on the national debt. I believe they would find new ways to line their pockets.

Unless all the rain lands in the ocean. You falsely assume that your government would spend the extra revenue on the national debt. I believe they would find new ways to line their pockets.

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 07:11 AM | Reply


So billions more money to the government won't help. Then you must think billions less money couldn't possibly hurt. If that were true, no money to the government would be best, and all services would be free. Can you see a flaw in your logic?

The electric bill from three or four plants wouldn't bring the cops. It is the electric bill in the hundreds that draws attention.

So billions more money to the government won't help. Then you must think billions less money couldn't possibly hurt. If that were true, no money to the government would be best, and all services would be free. Can you see a flaw in your logic?

There is no flaw in my logic.. More money might help, but you make it sound as if all (or even the majority of it) would go to the proper place. That is flawed logic. I would like to see a drastic reduction in government "services" as well as elimination of the national debt followed by much lower taxes. But it is naive to think that your leaders have your best interest or the best interest of this country at heart..

The electric bill from three or four plants wouldn't bring the cops. It is the electric bill in the hundreds that draws attention.

As few as 20 plants can do it... 3 or 4 would not..

It appears that you did say "grow your own pot" so electric bills probably wouldn't be an issue unless the person were a chimney..

DWAVE..."What I don't understand is why it's illegal. Tell me a large shot of Jack Daniels isn't worse for you than say a large doobie of Cal sensimilla. And how many pot smokers have you heard get lung cancer".... that and unlike JD pot smokers don't get beligerent like drunks. how many killings and fights happen in or just outside bars...it'd be a love fest...lower crime.

What I don't understand is why it's illegal.

That is a very good question considering that pretty much everybody in here seems to think it should be. Who comprises this majority that is against it?

"Any increase in tax revenue from sources not already taxed would reduce the burden on us all. How can you figure otherwise. To say that putting more money into the treasury would not reduce the tax burden, would be as foolish as saying reducing the money going to the treasury would not increase the tax burden."

bob, how many "new" sources of tax revenue do we have all the time??? Our Fed Treasury has so damn many sources of revenue they can't even keep up. Look at the size of our revenue. Where do you see ANY of it going to pay dowm debt or reduce tax burden for people????

Could you have ever imagined a time where our revenue would be in excess of $3 TRILLION and our debt GROWS at the same time????

No Bob, how can you NOT figure otherwise? This is not my nor your household. This is the US govt with over 500 elected idiots (collectively speaking) having their hands on it and the vast majority of them can't even run their own households very well. We trust $3 trillion with them and we are surprised at the results????

Not me.

It is a mirage to believe that any increase in new revenue would be used to pay down debt or reduce anybody's burden.

Further, all it will do is increase the size AND POWER of the government. More revenue means a larger treasury which means more lobbying to get access of the money which just ups the stakes for control of those elected officials.

You guys constantly complain about how much corporations control congress. Why do you think that is? If I were a corporation and I knew of a place where they took in $3 trillion and they were looking for friends then I would go there and make friends!!!!!

the same place now takes in $4 trillion and you think corporations would back off? Not successfully buy MORE control??

Our govt does NOT need new sources of revenue.

What I don't understand is why it's illegal.

That is a very good question considering that pretty much everybody in here seems to think it should be. Who comprises this majority that is against it?
JS,
Please accept this in the spirit intended. There are basically four groups of thought represented don this site: liberal; ultra-liberal; brain-dead, fruit-loop, fantasy land liberal and a small group that makes fun of the other three. There is no "moderate, progressive, centrist" (whatever that actually means) thought on this site.

So if you continue to wonder why pot is illegal when "pretty much everybody in here seems to think it should be" legal, bang your head forcefully against a brick wall. If you do not get an answer, ask the question and bang your head again. Continue to do this until you realize what the answer is or until you are ordered by a medical professional to cease and desist.

jsprague

"There is no flaw in my logic.. More money might help, but you make it sound as if all (or even the majority of it) would go to the proper place."

Where did I ever say that or anything close to that? Can you say "strawman"? All I said was that it would lower the tax burden on us all.


That is flawed logic.

Nope---that is your inability to read and your propensity to exaggerate.



"I would like to see a drastic reduction in government "services" as well as elimination of the national debt followed by much lower taxes."


What "services" would you like to see end?



"But it is naive to think that your leaders have your best interest or the best interest of this country at heart.."

Not the current leaders, but in general the leaders in the past have tried to help the country.




The electric bill from three or four plants wouldn't bring the cops. It is the electric bill in the hundreds that draws attention.

"As few as 20 plants can do it... 3 or 4 would not.."

Three or four would be all that was needed for personal use, and those three or four would stink up the whole house and part of the neighborhood before they were ready to smoke.

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 08:11 AM | Reply |

It is a mirage to believe that any increase in new revenue would be used to pay down debt or reduce anybody's burden.

Posted by eberly at 2006-12-19 10:07 AM | Reply


LOL.
That is the stupidest logic I have ever seen---especially after the previous posts have shown the flaws.

You seem to forget the budget was balanced and a surplus was forecast only six short years ago.

If the government doesn't need more money, then that must mean the government doesn't need any money. After all, if more money is bad---then less money must be better, and no money the best of all worlds. Idiot.

What's wrong with saying that less money is a good thing? It would force the government to cut unnecessary programs, like say, the Iraq war. If the government has to choose between a pointless war and retaining public schools, they'd opt for the latter. Unfortunately people like Bob don't want the government to have to make wise choices. Just give them all the money they want and eventually they will make life perfect for you.

What "services" would you like to see end?

Grandfather out Social Security.. Get rid of the department of homeland security. Scale back the responsibilities of the FCC. Get rid of FEMA. Get rid of all corporate welfare. Get our military out of foreign countries. Kill the patriot act. etc...

Joe---Even getting out of Iraq tomorrow wouldn't reduce the cost much. The men and equipmetn would still have to be paid and maintained, and our recontruction costs in Iraq would continue.

The cost of the military would still be there.



"Unfortunately people like Bob don't want the government to have to make wise choices. Just give them all the money they want and eventually they will make life perfect for you."

Unfortunately people like you don't know shit about people like me. People like me would like to send fiscally responsible people to Washington instead of the flag waving, bible thumping, cocksuckers, people like you have sent to Washington the last 12 years.

You seem to forget the budget was balanced and a surplus was forecast only six short years ago.

Balancing a budget is not the same as paying off the national debt. It would take many years running a massive surplus to do that.


If the government doesn't need more money, then that must mean the government doesn't need any money.

The government doesn't need more money. They have plenty. Maybe we should focus on how they spend it. More money equals bigger government - plain and simple.

"Even getting out of Iraq tomorrow wouldn't reduce the cost much."

That is the most laughable proposition I've heard in a long time. Sure there would still be some costs, but the war currently costs around $180M per day. Are you saying those costs couldn't be reduced by ending the war today? If so, you're an idiot. If we followed your logic, we might as well take over the entire middle east over the course of the next 100 years, since the costs would be the same if we ended the war today. What a joke.

Packaged properly it was worth 100 bucks a lid in the 70's.

Which was the last time anybody used the term "Lid".

If the government has to choose between a pointless war and retaining public schools, they'd opt for the latter.

Posted by JOE

If that were true, right now we'd have less war and better schools.

"Even getting out of Iraq tomorrow wouldn't reduce the cost much."

Yeah, that is pretty dumb... A five year old could probably figure out that maintaining an army in a foreign country costs a helluva lot more than doing so at home.

Joe,

Already our minds are coming together as one ...

What's wrong with saying that less money is a good thing? It would force the government to cut unnecessary programs, like say...

Dept of education; Commerce Department; Earned Income Tax Credits: National endowment for the Arts: School lunch program: college grants: teen pregnancy programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; 19 programs fighting substance abuse; Congressional page program (make weird reps find their own supply of nubile school age boys); Capital hill intern program (make democrats find "women" young enough to be their daughters" on their own); retirement plans for politicians; Congressional staffs ...

Yeah, that is pretty dumb... A five year old could probably figure out that maintaining an army in a foreign country costs a helluva lot more than doing so at home.

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 10:55 AM |


Few costs would be saved by having the troops at home except for some munition costs. What costs do you see being saved Super Genius?

JonCarry, that's a good start, there are so many more though. I have family in Wisconsin who just told me that their county board took $600K in federal highway money to build a bike path bridge over a highway, next to a regular road bridge that is already there that bikers can use. I wonder how many other useless projects like these can be cut. Of course, people like Bob will tell you that the answer to problems like this is to give the government more money.

What costs do you see being saved Super Genius?

If you have to ask...

What were we spending per day on the military pre-Iraq? And how about now?

Are you really going to try to defend this ludicrous point?

"Few costs would be saved by having the troops at home except for some munition costs."

If that's the case then why did they have to vote for funding the war in the first place? Why not just use the money they would have spent on our troops here and move them over there? After all, the only additional costs involved in fighting a war are the cost of bullets.

You seem to forget the budget was balanced and a surplus was forecast only six short years ago.

"Balancing a budget is not the same as paying off the national debt. It would take many years running a massive surplus to do that."

Maybe you should read the last half of that sentence where it says something about SURPLUSES being projected. Surpluses would go to paying off the national debt.


The government doesn't need more money. They have plenty. Maybe we should focus on how they spend it. More money equals bigger government - plain and simple.

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 10:49 AM


Focusing on how to spend it was the only portion of your post to make any sense. Obviously the government needs more money. Obviously more money does not mean bigger government. It only means bigger government if we keep sending the same idiots back to Washington.

Few costs would be saved by having the troops at home except for some munition costs. What costs do you see being saved Super Genius?

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2006-12-19 10:59 AM | Reply

Just tell them Mother Teresa is a whore and claim victory Copernicus.

Open a window at the retirement home, I fear you are being overcome by fumes.

Surpluses would go to paying off the national debt.

Says who? I didn't realize that you were in charge..

After all, the only additional costs involved in fighting a war are the cost of bullets.

Posted by JOE at 2006-12-19 11:03 AM | Reply


List the costs that would be saved Super Genius. Omit munitions.

Eberly,

Interesting posts, I hadn't thought of it that way. Those of us who indulge ... we consider this notion of deregulation to be less government, since there is no longer risk of incarceration.

Says who? I didn't realize that you were in charge..

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 11:06 AM


If the people in charge were responsible enough to balance the budget, they would be responsible to pay off the national debt. It would probably be what they ran for office to accomplish. But you may be correct---maybe there is no future for America and we should all just shoot ourselves---you first.

List the costs that would be saved Super Genius. Omit munitions.

How about the cost of lost planes, helicopters, Humvees? How about the massive cost of fuel to run these and our other equipment? Do you have any idea how much jet fuel costs? How about the cost of getting supplies over there? How about the cost of payments to disabled veterans? How about feeding all of those reserves? How about you are insane? The list could go on forever...

Why don't you answer my question.. What was the daily expenditure pre-Iraq compared to now?

List the costs that would be saved Super Genius. Omit munitions.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2006-12-19 11:07 AM | Reply


Fuel
Repair costs due to wear and tear
Hospitalization
Maintaining 2 living quarters (one in Iraq, one in the states)
Transportation costs to and fro Iraq
Combat Zone Pay
Cost of hiring Iraqi Civilians
Cost of Haliburton/KBR contracts

The list goes on. You really are not very bright.

"List the costs that would be saved Super Genius."

For starters, you have the cost of future medical care of everyone that will be injured every day that you stay in Iraq. I also believe that "combat pay" is more than "regular pay" for soldiers. Wear and tear on military equipment is another cost. I suppose you'll tell me our tanks and helicopters would be driven and shot at just as much here as they are there?

Why don't you answer my question.. What was the daily expenditure pre-Iraq compared to now?

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 11:13 AM


Answer the question yourself.

I also forgot paying part time reservists and National Guard troops an active soldiers' wage...


You are such a fool that I'm surprised you managed to live through the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's 70's, 80's 90's, etc...

If the people in charge were responsible enough to balance the budget, they would be responsible to pay off the national debt. It would probably be what they ran for office to accomplish. But you may be correct---maybe there is no future for America and we should all just shoot ourselves---you first.

I am sorry that reality is so delusional for you.. There is a future for America if people vote for candidates that actually have an interest in making things better. Given who we elected the last 2 rounds, I don't have a lot of faith in people right now.

Answer the question yourself.

I don't need to. I know the answer and I am not the one making assanine assertions like you.. Pull your head out..

"For starters, you have the cost of future medical care of everyone that will be injured every day that you stay in Iraq."

The hospitals would still be open. The doctors are still being paid.


"I also believe that "combat pay" is more than "regular pay" for soldiers."

Combat pay is a miniscule part of the expenditures


"Wear and tear on military equipment is another cost. I suppose you'll tell me our tanks and helicopters would be driven and shot at just as much here as they are there?"

The people who maitain them would still be in place---they would just have less work to do.

You've saved about 2 bucks so far---anything else?

Posted by JOE at 2006-12-19 11:15 AM | Reply |

I don't need to. I know the answer and I am not the one making assanine assertions like you.. Pull your head out..

Posted by jsprague at 2006-12-19 11:18 AM | Reply


I believe you are the one talking with your head up your ass--I believe the echo has done brain damage. You don't know the answer to your question.

"The people who maitain them would still be in place---they would just have less work to do."

So the tank itself doesn't cost anything? The helicopter itself doesn't cost anything? Are you really this stupid?

Just when I think he can't become more of a laughing stock (911, Mother Teresa, Bush is a pedo, etc...) BeefaloBoob pulls out all of the stops and reminds me why I keep coming back here...To laugh at the far left.

$378,000,000 (at a minimum) in combat pay per year is miniscule...

Medication, prostetics, etc are all free I imagine?

What do spare parts cost in BeefaloBoob world?...$2. $2 for new tank tracks, $2 for helecopter rotors, $2 for a new Bradley Engine...


My god you need help.

Fuel

LOL--Like they'll just park all the planes and trucks when in the states.


Repair costs due to wear and tear

Nope those guys are full time anyway--whether there is anything to repair or not



Hospitalization

Yeah right--we'll close all the hospitals as soon as we get out of Iraq.



Maintaining 2 living quarters (one in Iraq, one in the states)

BFD---some hootches in Iraq---the stateside barracks would be there anyway.


Transportation costs to and fro Iraq

The navy travels all over the world every day, war or peace---the costs saved would be negligible.


Combat Zone Pay

Again, a minor overall expense.


Cost of hiring Iraqi Civilians

They would still be there for some time for recontruction.


Cost of Haliburton/KBR contracts.

These leeches would be the reconstruction dummy.

The list goes on. You really are not very bright.

LOL--look who's talking.

Posted by 101Chairborne


I also forgot paying part time reservists and National Guard troops an active soldiers' wage...


So what is the total?

Tonyroma---we are trying to figure the cost saved if we pulled the troops out today.

I know that when I look for cost accounting expertise and think of the design of models that would predict the cost of something like a war ... I think Rolling Stone magazine.

What do parts cost in BuffaloFruitcake world?
What is the replacement cost of an F16, Bradley, Chinook, etc?
True or False: The hospitalization of 0 people costs the same as the hospitalization of 18,000 troops?

True or False: Pilots would be flying as much stateside as they do while in a combat zone.
True or False: Naval Ships are the only transportation to and from Iraq.
True or False: Sending a carrier group on extended duty and repeatedly deploying them is the same cost as a carrier group sitting in a port.


I'm done with you, your stupidity know's no bounds.

There is a $70 billion surplus because of one simple fact, it is coming from social security funds....."You seem to forget the budget was balanced and a surplus was forecast only six short years ago"......good grief...look it up

"So you are against the war in Iraq? Is that what I'm hearing?"

I don't think he ever said that. He said that spending would be reduced if you ended the war today. I noticed you never answered his true or false questions. You're an idiot.

If that's what you're hearing Beefalo I suggest a new hearing aide.

Is there a subject besides shingles, broken hips, and The Charleston that you actually know something about?

101---So you are against the war in Iraq? Is that what I'm hearing?


He never said that, stick to the issues and quit trying to go off on tangents. I want to see how ending the war would not save billions.

$225 a month per soldier for combat pay...
I wonder how may people are TDY that wouldn't ordinarily be?
I wonder what we pay Halliburton/KBR etc for keeping our troops fed and our water purified?
I wonder what the US Government is paying the various contractors for running, laoding, and protecting those convoys?

I wonder what horrible traumatizing event has happened in BuffaloBoobs life that makes him such a stooge?

Joe---lol---would it help if I answered his simpleton questions. Fine.
Let's see YOU answer my questions in response.

"True or False: The hospitalization of 0 people costs the same as the hospitalization of 18,000 troops?"

False. But then when has there ever been zero people in military hospitals.
True or false: Almost as many doctors and medical equipment would necessarily be maintained for future emergencies?




"True or False: Pilots would be flying as much stateside as they do while in a combat zone."

False. But the planes would still be maintained by the same personnel, and the planes would be flown.
True or false. The cost of plane maintenance and would be the same except for reduced fuel costs.




"True or False: Naval Ships are the only transportation to and from Iraq."

False.
True or false: Alertnate shipping costs to Iraq are a major portion of the budget.




"True or False: Sending a carrier group on extended duty and repeatedly deploying them is the same cost as a carrier group sitting in a port."

False.
True or false. Carriers usually sit at port during peacetime.

"False. But then when has there ever been zero people in military hospitals."

Then rephrase the question. True or False- It costs the same to hospitalize the number of persons in military hospitals when troops aren't being blown up on a daily basis, than when they are.

"True or false: Almost as many doctors and medical equipment would necessarily be maintained for future emergencies?"

I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you. Do you think doctors and nurses get paid to sit around and pick your ass? Since that's an assumption you need to keep from looking like an idiot, I suggest you prove it.

"False. But the planes would still be maintained by the same personnel, and the planes would be flown."

They probably wouldn't be flown as much as they are now, and they definitely wouldn't be shot at. Do you think planes, tanks and helicopters incur the same amount of wear and tear during peace as they do during wartime?

bob..admit your wrong so this thread can get back on subject. and if you really think that stopping the war would not slow down the massive hemmoraging of money coming out of this country then you really are dilusinal.
im a weed soaked long haired hippy and you are making me have to agree with the right nuts like 101 and joe...stop it!

BB, I am not in agreement with many against you right now, but your argument is a losing one. War is way more expensive than peace.

Let's look at mail. Do you think a box of cookies from your mom is more expensive to deliver to Camp Pendelton in California or Baghdad? How about a Humvee?
You really should learn to admit when you are wrong, something the Pubs should have learned long ago.

OK, if we don't legalize it, at least tell the DEA not to waste money on weed, and to concentrate on the drugs that are truly 'life-enders' (Heroine, Meth...etc) and I'd tell the police not to bother anyone if they're caught with weed as well. If you're using it openly or you have more than qp, then sure, some light jail for you for being so stupid, but if you're caught with a joint, then let it go. Save the manpower and financial resources for the hard stuff.

Amazing, CommonSense posts about marijuana in a weed thread.

So what is the argument for keeping this stuff illegal? Those people who can magically look into the future call for moral decay? Is that it?

Do you think doctors and nurses get paid to sit around and pick your ass? .Joe

The proctologists could.

Let's look at mail. Do you think a box of cookies from your mom is more expensive to deliver to Camp Pendelton in California or Baghdad? How about a Humvee?
You really should learn to admit when you are wrong, something the Pubs should have learned long ago.

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2006-12-19 12:27 PM


It all depends if someone was going there anyway and if it could be shipped with them.

The point was never about peace being less expensive than war. The point was that expenses would still be incurred---that many of the costs associated with the war would still continue whether we were there or not.

Hw Bush is still a pedophile, and his son is our first bisexual President.

"The point was that expenses would still be incurred"

Great point Bob. "There will still be a military budget." That's about as good a point as "if we ended the Iraq war, the sun would rise tomorrow."

Joe--The original point was that legalizing marijuana would lower the tax burden for everyone. Some people disagreed saying billions in more tax revenue for the government would have no effect on anything.

The rest was because dumbasses like yourself aren't bright enough to know that the 118 million a day we are spending in Iraq won't all be reduced to zero because we leave the country.

HW Bush is still a pedophile, and his son is our first bisexual president.

TONY "this additional money has left America to be put into the pockets of Iran, Venezuela, and the other countries we buy oil from"...totally AGREE.too bad we haven't been drilling off shore and anwar a long time ago ....should have been building more nuclear power plants and more refineries also.

"the 118 million a day we are spending in Iraq won't all be reduced to zero because we leave the country."

Nobody ever said it would go down to zero. I said it would constitute a reduction in government spending, and a popular one at that. Your retort to that point was that we will still have military spending. Nice point.

BTW, it's $200,000,000 per day.

"I said it would constitute a reduction in government spending, and a popular one at that."

Gee I guess that makes you a Super Genius.

Kerrin...

While I agree with the gist of your statements, I'm not convinced the potential harm done to environmentally sensitive areas is worth the oil we'd get from them.

The reality is this: Jimmy Carter tried to get this nation to face a future entailing less petroleum usage and the advancement of new technologies to wean our dependence on oil, but he was shown the door because we didn't want to. We've had a generation to find alternative energy sources and nothing appreciable has happened. It only took this nation 10 years to put a man on the moon, yet we can't find better energy sources in 40+ years of research?

I find it hard to believe, especially considering how much money there is to be made from viable alternatives. This is where the focus should lie, along with generous incentives paid for by higher energy consumption taxes in the present. Nothing is going to happen until it hurts.

TONY "this additional money has left America to be put into the pockets of Iran, Venezuela, and the other countries we buy oil from"...totally AGREE.too bad we haven't been drilling off shore and anwar a long time ago ....should have been building more nuclear power plants and more refineries also.

Posted by kerrin57 at 2006-12-19 02:34 PM | Reply


I hope that You aren't going to blame the Liberals for noty having more Nuclear Reactor power plants Thank Three Mile Island for THAT and Don't blame Liberals for the Refinery deal blame the Oil Industry themselves for the lack of Refineries. They wanted it that way to increase the value of the oil being refined.

Larry

Eberly,

Interesting posts, I hadn't thought of it that way. Those of us who indulge ... we consider this notion of deregulation to be less government, since there is no longer risk of incarceration.

Posted by Pleasantville

Ah, finally!!! A reasonable argument that the size of govt might decrease if MJ was legalized. In that aspect, I would agree with you Pleasant. I don't really know how much money is spent on incarceration for MJ users but removing the "criminal" status would make sense in the regard...regardless of how much is saved.

I don't have a problem with legalizing MJ (a point that went way over bob's head). I just don't believe in the taxing of it to further increase the size of govt.

For those of you who can step forward and admit that you think our society is better and your quality of life is better because our treasury spends $3 trillion then I say you are crazy. Yes, life can be better for us and mine gets better all the time. However, it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the size of our treasury.

Idiotbob, question for you.....if we legalized and taxed MJ creating this new stream of income, which source of income currently being tapped by our treasury would you trust our govt to shut off??
Just give me one.



"You seem to forget the budget was balanced and a surplus was forecast only six short years ago.

If the government doesn't need more money, then that must mean the government doesn't need any money. After all, if more money is bad---then less money must be better, and no money the best of all worlds. Idiot.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob"

another mirage bob. Idiot.

Unfortunately people like you don't know shit about people like me. People like me would like to send fiscally responsible people to Washington instead of the flag waving, bible thumping, cocksuckers, people like you have sent to Washington the last 12 years.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob

Hatebob, do you hate all homosexuals or just the patriotic ones who go to church?

Obviously you hate people who love this country, go to church, and homosexuals.

You have made that 100% clear. I can't believe RCADE keeps your ragged ass around hateBOB. It is hypocritical IMO. I'm surprised anybody who is homosexual or bi-sexual or anyone who simply empathizes with equal rights and bigotry of homosexuals can even fucking stand to tolerate you hateBob!!!!!!! You are the most intolerant person here. Without any provocation, you attack anybody who disagrees with you.

Eberly,

So if it were legalized, you would want some sort of free market, corporation oriented approach instead of the government itself growing and selling?

I know a guy who has warned about the dangers of the government being in charge of such vices, though he chooses to cite the Boxer Rebellion.

"So if it were legalized, you would want some sort of free market, corporation oriented approach instead of the government itself growing and selling?"

I wouldn't want the govt involved at all except in the capacity as the FDA would regulate standards on the things they oversee. As far as someone growing themselves and smoking it? No different than someone with a garden.

Amazing, CommonSense posts about marijuana in a weed thread.

So what is the argument for keeping this stuff illegal? Those people who can magically look into the future call for moral decay? Is that it?

Posted by Pleasantville at 2006-12-19 01:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

What the hell are you talking about??

I'm all for legalizing it, but many politicians shy away from the matter for fear or their opponents saying "look, he supports drugs!!". This is one reason why it won't be legal for a long time on the Federal level. Notice my DEA reference?

My point was "IF" it is going to remain illegal. Get it?

Here, let me refresh you memory:

"OK, if we don't legalize it, at least tell the DEA not to waste money on weed,..."



Now, I'm off to fire up my bubbler with some great BC.

Puff. Puff.

For those of you who can step forward and admit that you think our society is better and your quality of life is better because our treasury spends $3 trillion then I say you are crazy.

Posted by eberly

I dunno, an old lady on social security or a poor baby getting treatment for asthma or someone who became a doctor thanks to Pell Grants probably feel that their lives are better thanks to that money.

Since none of us were alive 100 years ago or so, we really don't know how truly miserable people's lives were.

I dunno, an old lady on social security or a poor baby getting treatment for asthma or someone who became a doctor thanks to Pell Grants probably feel that their lives are better thanks to that money.

Since none of us were alive 100 years ago or so, we really don't know how truly miserable people's lives were.

Posted by TFDNihilist

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a libertarian who believes in the almost elimination of the federal govt.

Bob trusts that our govt would take extra revenue and spend it wisely.

I don't.