|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 frisky_
don't panic.
Registered: 11/01/07
Posts: 732
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
 "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" 
#9330073 - 11/29/08 12:17 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I do hope this hasn't been posted before...
Bill O'Reilly being a douche bag as usual. What utter bullshit...
Just kidding. This is the "no spin" zone!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/video/?playerId=videolandingpage&referralObject=3209498
--------------------
 your horse is too tall
 and your brain is too small
|
Coaster
Baʿal
 
Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: frisky_]
#9330098 - 11/29/08 12:24 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
i bet its the same in socal too
--------------------
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany 
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: frisky_]
#9330125 - 11/29/08 12:30 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
yea bill o'reilly is stupid
people that watch him are stupid
fox news sucks.
I gotta say, if we had pot shops at every street corner the world would be a better place.
|
Coaster
Baʿal
Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Coaster]
#9330137 - 11/29/08 12:32 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
his argument was
"the drug addicts get marijuana sell it to 16 year olds so they can buy meth and heroin"
--------------------
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Coaster]
#9330145 - 11/29/08 12:34 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
yea that made me guffaw in annoyance too. I didn't watch the whole thing because it was so ignorant and maddeningly stupid. It's pure propaganda.
|
frisky_
don't panic.
Registered: 11/01/07
Posts: 732
Last seen: 10 years, 10 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9330182 - 11/29/08 12:44 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beege said:
yea that made me guffaw in annoyance too. I didn't watch the whole thing because it was so ignorant and maddeningly stupid. It's pure propaganda.
Propaganda???
Propaganda?!??!?!?!?
This is no spin zone damn it! The pure and utter truth!
--------------------
your horse is too tall
and your brain is too small
|
Beanhead
IS IRONIC PARADOX
Registered: 10/11/08
Posts: 17,257
Loc: Geospatial inversion.
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: frisky_]
#9330856 - 11/29/08 05:46 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by Beanhead (06/29/15 07:20 AM)
|
dead
grateful
Registered: 08/28/08
Posts: 2,761
Loc: North pole
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beanhead]
#9330866 - 11/29/08 05:52 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
True, but it's not only America... even Holland is banning shrooms, that's retarded too.
--------------------
"The third eye. You spend years doing everything you can to open it and then the damn thing opens and your friends laugh at you when you tell them you can see their souls behind their eyes burning like rainbows."
Links:
 Nibin's Guide for Noobs
some easy teks on bulk & grain prep. (my journal)
|
Beanhead
IS IRONIC PARADOX
Registered: 10/11/08
Posts: 17,257
Loc: Geospatial inversion.
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: dead]
#9330877 - 11/29/08 05:58 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
.
Edited by Beanhead (06/29/15 07:20 AM)
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beanhead]
#9331081 - 11/29/08 08:12 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
what do french people have to do with a Dutch shroom ban?
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331092 - 11/29/08 08:15 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beege said:
what do french people have to do with a Dutch shroom ban?
I’m a little but late with this one, but it’s worth mentioning nonetheless…The Netherlands, famous for its canals, daffodils and gay policemen, banned magic mushrooms last week – a further dent in the country’s reputation as a bastion of liberalism, tolerance and tripped-out students.
It had been suggested by the mayor of Amsterdam that there be a three-day waiting period for people who want to buy magic mushrooms, but instead, the government has decided to go for an outright ban.
The reason? There have been a number of incidents in the past few months in which some trips went badly wrong: a 17-year-old French girl drowned after jumping off a bridge; an Icelandic tourist who thought he was being chased jumped off a balcony and broke both legs, and a Danish tourist drove a car through a campsite. (Presumably, this tourist wasn't too messed up as he fortunately managed to miss all of the campers in the site - demonstrating, if anything, some pretty good driving skills, I would have thought.)
Over the past six years, magic mushrooms have been banned in Denmark, Britain and Ireland. In Ireland, mushrooms were banned in January last year after a 30-year-old man who had taken some mushrooms died after jumping off a balcony. (In Ireland, in 1995, a woman died following an allergic reaction to shellfish in a Chinese takeaway. As of yet, however, there have been no calls to ban the sale of shellfish, even though in terms of Irish fatalities, they are as deadly as mushrooms.)
Of course, all of these deaths and jumping off balconies are tragic…But are they reason enough to ban something which the vast majority of people can use without any problems? In the months preceding the Dutch ban, for example, during which time the French girl (who had a history of psychotic problems) died, and the Icelandic and Danish tourists either hurt themselves or almost hurt others, no doubt there were plenty of other tourists – and Dutch people, for that matter – who ate some mushrooms and…wait for it…didn’t kill themselves, or hurt anyone, or drive though campsites, or think they were chased by any demons, or accidentally sacrafice any small animals.
Many, in fact, may have actually had a fine time – their only crime talking complete nonsense for a few hours or possibly trying to have sex in public with an inanimate object.
It’s also quite noticeable that the people who did come to public attention in the Netherlands for tripping out on mushrooms were mostly tourists – according to the health authorities, between January and August of this year, of the 35 people who called the emergency services, 90 percent of these were tourists. Seems rather unfair to make law-abiding, magic mushroom-consuming Dutch people pay for the mistakes of a few tourists.
Which brings me to a quote from Doug Stanhope, one of the best comedians around: “There are only two types of people who are against drugs: there are the people who’ve never done drugs, and there are people who really sucked at doing drugs.”
--------------------
  
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331127 - 11/29/08 08:30 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
yes I did hear about the ban, in fact I posted a pretty irate blog about it. I just didn't know the girl involved was french.
and hmmm let's see, how many people die from alcohol each year? What's that? hundreds of thousands? Weird how that's legal, huh?
|
Wapakz
1000 Needles
Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331133 - 11/29/08 08:34 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, I saw this video about a week ago. I was disgusted, yet not surprised in Bill O'Reilly's lies.
--------------------
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331141 - 11/29/08 08:37 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The FDA approves hundereds of synthetic prescription pills every year, with a list of negative, and very serious possible side effects. It is called money my friend. And when you control a market, that is how you make more money. The only reason that Absinthe was banned in the us, is because of Wine lobbyist, protecting the market for there clients.. Absinthe having been proven to be know more harmful than wine. It is a political game, not a logical one.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331144 - 11/29/08 08:37 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Bill O'Reilly takes his script from "higher-ups" and is basically just a figurehead of the uber-conservative. It makes me sick that a supposed 'news channel' would have something this biased on the air. But what do you expect, it's called the faux news for a reason.
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331146 - 11/29/08 08:39 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
flip3084 said:
The FDA approves hundereds of synthetic prescription pills every year, with a list of negative, and very serious possible side effects. It is called money my friend. And when you control a market, that is how you make more money. The only reason that Absinthe was banned in the us, is because of Wine lobbyist, protecting the market for there clients.. Absinthe having been proven to be know more harmful than wine. It is a political game, not a logical one.
I know, it makes me sick.
The Partnership For A Drug-Free America is funded primarily by alcohol and cigarette companies, go figure.
|
Wapakz
1000 Needles
Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331151 - 11/29/08 08:41 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
But it's just... I don't know. Not being able to do about it when someone is publicly lying like this is just sort of unnerving. It could definitely be used for several mental ailments.
It's just as flip said; if the government and med companies can't control it's distribution (and hence tax it like alcohol and tobacco), it'll stay illigal. No matter what it is or what it can do.
--------------------
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331156 - 11/29/08 08:43 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
the government can tax anything. That's not the problem. The problem is the FDA, alcohol, cigarette, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't want people to use anything besides their drugs, because that's what they can make money on.
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331170 - 11/29/08 08:49 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beege said:
the government can tax anything. That's not the problem. The problem is the FDA, alcohol, cigarette, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't want people to use anything besides their drugs, because that's what they can make money on.
True. My fiance and I had a discussion on the most logical way to approach the fight to legalize. She believes it is through research of medicinal uses. I believe that is is medicinal, but bottom line, this is my body, and I don't feel the need to sugar coat my fight. Some use it to kill pain, nausea,,, I use it to get stoned, or relax. I should not have to justify my self, and I refuse, no matter the law, to let someone else govern my body... My fight is such, keep your laws out of my body..
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331171 - 11/29/08 08:52 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
flip3084 said:
Quote:
Beege said:
the government can tax anything. That's not the problem. The problem is the FDA, alcohol, cigarette, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't want people to use anything besides their drugs, because that's what they can make money on.
True. My fiance and I had a discussion on the most logical way to approach the fight to legalize. She believes it is through research of medicinal uses. I believe that is is medicinal, but bottom line, this is my body, and I don't feel the need to sugar coat my fight. Some use it to kill pain, nausea,,, I use it to get stoned, or relax. I should not have to justify my self, and I refuse, no matter the law, to let someone else govern my body... My fight is such, keep your laws out of my body..
Exactly how I feel. I have the right to put into my body and mind whatever I feel is right and good and it certainly isn't the government's place to tell me any different. The war on drugs is a direct war on the American Public, and a lot of that said public doesn't even realize it!
|
Wapakz
1000 Needles
Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331176 - 11/29/08 08:54 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beege said:
the government can tax anything. That's not the problem. The problem is the FDA, alcohol, cigarette, pharmaceutical companies, etc. don't want people to use anything besides their drugs, because that's what they can make money on.
Not necessarily. If the government can't control where the substance is coming from, it can't tax. Therefore it stays illigal.
--------------------
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331180 - 11/29/08 08:56 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure I understand your point. Why wouldn't the government be able to tax a substance once it's on the open market? How is marijuana any different from any other plant material sold in stores?
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331190 - 11/29/08 09:04 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I used to believe that the issue was the inability to tax... But it is not. The issue is the amount of people who would say hell no to pharmecutial poisons, once there was no longer a concequence for the use of something so harmless. Money, is and always will be the issue. There is more money in the pharmecutial industry, than in the taxation of marijuana. In the 1930's the orgianl so called ban on MJ, was not so much a ban, rather an un obtainable tax, and an attack on mexican workers in the southern states. At that point in time, it was very easy for migrants, to come over the border work at there job for the day, and go back.. And it was noted, that many of these workers, carried, and used marijuana. Well, alot more open and blind racism at that time, so those in power, decided to put a stop to that by inacting a stamp act. You needed a stamp to possess or obatain marijuana, but guess what, you needed marijuana to get a stamp, and it was a no no, without one, so it was made impossible. In the late 1960's Timothy Leary brought this issue, or plight rather, to the supreme court, and for a short period of time, during the vietnam war, there was no ban what so ever on marijuana. in 1971 however, the actual classification under the new"DEA" was made, and, no more legal marijuna.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
Edited by flip3084 (11/29/08 09:05 AM)
|
jvm
I knew the pieces fit!
Registered: 05/08/07
Posts: 2,031
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331191 - 11/29/08 09:04 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Oops  Just woke up.
Edited by jvm (11/29/08 09:29 AM)
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: jvm]
#9331196 - 11/29/08 09:07 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The government can tax anything they want. What exactly do you think it is they do with Tobacco??
And the majority of pharmecuitals these days, have no natural counterparts to there synthetic structures... They used to, but not anymore.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: jvm]
#9331199 - 11/29/08 09:08 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
jvm that makes no sense whatsoever, if it is sold in an open market it's going to be taxed. It doesn't matter if it's a plant, inanimate object, moon rock, etc. EVERYTHING is taxable and EVERYTHING will be taxed if it is sold in an open market. As flip has stated, the original ban on marijuana was simply a tax that could not be met. The idea that something is inherently untaxable is preposterous.
|
Wapakz
1000 Needles
Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331214 - 11/29/08 09:17 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, I didn't clarify. I'll try to put this in layman's terms.
There's an illigal substance, we'll call it "X".
Unless every illigal source of X was stopped at the border and tagged by the US government and registered for tax purposes, there'd be an abundance of illigal, tax-free X readily available to suit the needs of the people from somewhere else (Columbia? Nicaragua? Zimbabwe? Who knows).
A few months later the government makes X legal. Hooray! The government does this because the economy isn't doing great and needs tax revenue or liberalizes, whatever. But what is important is that the government now has to hunt down every single illigal, bootlegged source of X in order to control the substance and tax it.
If the government can only find and tax (legalize) say 60% of the sources of X, then the government can expect maybe 20% of tax revenue. But "that doesn't make sense!" you exclaim.
Well here's how that works. If you had a choice between a legal, highly-taxed X that the government approved, or a tax-free version of X then you'd go for the tax-free version out of necessity and a great price. The same happens here with bootlegged Indian cigarettes that are purchased illegally in reservations. Another example would be alcohol, which is taxed to high heaven. If you knew how much tax was on beer you'd realize the difference government tax makes. The price of X would shoot up maybe 40%.
So unless the government can stranglehold X and make sure it has close to 100% of X under wraps (taxable), it won't even bother trying because nobody would ever purchase the government's legal version of X, they'd go for the alternative and the government wouldn't get any revenue... but X would be rampant, regardless. So what the government would get is more people doing X, but not a lot of revenue - and that's not easy or cheap to enforce.
Let's say the revenue of newly legal X is $2,500,000/yr in New York. But the coast guard and border patrols now payed to monitor which X is legal or not costs $2,200,000/yr. The remaining funds are too insignificant to fathom using on a municipal scale (I know, I know, the tax would be federal, it's just an example). Let's say hunting down the X costs more border police than the taxes bring in in revenue. That's a financial nightmare!
Just making something legal after being illegal for ?no of years is not easy... it's not easy to facilitate a change. It's easy for people to assume making something legal suddenly sprouts rainbows and lollypops, but on a government level it's a nightmare. That's another reason why prohibition is kept instated.
--------------------
|
jvm
I knew the pieces fit!
Registered: 05/08/07
Posts: 2,031
Loc: Cleveland, Ohio
Last seen: 1 year, 7 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: jvm]
#9331216 - 11/29/08 09:18 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Oops i got it mixed up, sorry! I was thinking of plants not being able to be patented for pharm use.
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331224 - 11/29/08 09:22 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Your suppositions don't really make much sense. Once marijuana was legalized and it could be sold on the open market it wouldn't cost nearly as much as it does now. The only reason it can be sold on the black market at such exorbitant prices is because it's illegal. Once it's legalized black market trade of the substance would all but die and it would become completely legitimate, thus lowering prices on the material in question and allowing a tax to be implemented.
In your reasoning the government would be losing large sums of tax revenue off of potatoes because potato farmers would be selling their wares on the black market, it doesn't make sense.
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331228 - 11/29/08 09:23 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
It is very simple, althought it is not going to happen. If the government legalized taxed your"x", and there was still plenty going around, well, there wouldnt be for long. That would make simple untaxed possesion, a federal crime, not a state one. You know, tax evasion. And as most drug dealers,(at least the big ones know) You want to do everything you can to avoid federal charges, cause there are no paroles, for federal crimes, and the time you get is the time you serve. It would be an extremely large deterrent. So, I fail to see it as the issue.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331239 - 11/29/08 09:26 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
not to mention nobody would be willing to pay the high price for black market 'x' when they could go to the supermarket and buy it for cheaper.
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331240 - 11/29/08 09:27 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Some shrooms for you beege. To much misinformation out there, and two many people who hear one detail, and think that they have it all figured out.. Ever gone to a party, and had the misfortune of having to listen to a bullshit theory, on drugs, why there illegal, and other such rants. Well happy to say, you have been a refreshing change of pace
Thanks
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
Edited by flip3084 (11/29/08 09:30 AM)
|
Wapakz
1000 Needles
Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331259 - 11/29/08 09:32 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beege said:
Your suppositions don't really make much sense. Once marijuana was legalized and it could be sold on the open market it wouldn't cost nearly as much as it does now. The only reason it can be sold on the black market at such exorbitant prices is because it's illegal. Once it's legalized black market trade of the substance would all but die and it would become completely legitimate, thus lowering prices on the material in question and allowing a tax to be implemented.
You're forgetting that the cartels, rather than competing with the government, are currently competing with other cartels. Thus illigal marijuana is already in a price war, whether you know it or not. Thus the current price of marijuana per strain would stay the same... with tax to boot if made legal.
Quote:
In your reasoning the government would be losing large sums of tax revenue off of potatoes because potato farmers would be selling their wares on the black market, it doesn't make sense.
I don't understand your example, but I guarantee you've misunderstood me.
Quote:
flip3084 said:
It is very simple, althought it is not going to happen. If the government legalized taxed your"x", and there was still plenty going around, well, there wouldnt be for long. That would make simple untaxed possesion, a federal crime, not a state one. You know, tax evasion. And as most drug dealers,(at least the big ones know) You want to do everything you can to avoid federal charges, cause there are no paroles, for federal crimes, and the time you get is the time you serve. It would be an extremely large deterrent. So, I fail to see it as the issue.
Very good point. I'm glad you brought this issue up.
Making possession of untaxed X illigal would be a federal crime. But keep in mind it costs over $60,000/yr to keep a person in prison. Federal crimes have big penalties, often draconian. The government would have to spend a lot of money for the new influx of inmates trafficking or using X, and the cost of prison sentences itself would outweigh the tax revenue of X in the first place.
The way I see it is this:
X legality = Potential Revenue
Border Patrol = Potential Expense
Prison Sentences = Potential Expense
So you may be on to something... but the only way I can see X making any profit or revenue for the government would be for legally-taxable X to outweigh the costly prison sentences and border-step ups to ensure there's some revenue left over. How is this done? The price of X skyrockets to facilitate government costs in making it legal in the first place. This drives users to buy bootlegged X even more.
What do you think, flip?
--------------------
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331275 - 11/29/08 09:39 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I agree, it would cost alot to house more inmates. But I see the 50+years of straight time, being a rather good deterrent for this. Plus, why sell on the street, when you could now become a legitiamte buisness owner doing what you have always done. Take Marc Emery, filed his taxes every year, as marijuana seed vendor. I think people are more likely to accept the transition than to resist it. Although what we are both stating are opinions. Our arguments start off objectively , but most certainly end subjective. The truth is, it hasn't happend yet, so as with all theortical sciences(politics, physics) It will all be subjective, until the events occur.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331285 - 11/29/08 09:42 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Some shrooms for you Wapakz
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Wapakz
1000 Needles
Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 1,912
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331287 - 11/29/08 09:43 AM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Well to be honest with you, this was all devil's advocate. The way I honestly see it, is the facilitation of X would take, at MOST, 5 years before legal X has complete, 100% ownership of the market's supply.
This was very refreshing and enjoyable debate though. I really want to see how it gets played out, if it does.
--------------------
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Wapakz]
#9331895 - 11/29/08 12:39 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
There is another argument, or theory that I would like to discuss.. I brought up above, those people who like to proclaim they understand, why drugs are illegal. Well you hear alot about religion. I think that this holds little validity in the argument of the legality of drugs. It goes back to money everytime. Some of the most wealthy americans, or people anywhere for that matter, claim to be very spiritual, and religious, yet to get to the point of there extreme wealth, they failed to follow just about any of the guidelines set up by there claimed belief system. No matter if it is Pat Robertson, or the president of the United States, when it comes to matters of buisness, there god is no where to be found. If those in question believed, the taxationt to be more profitable, then again, god would be no where to be found. More on this in a moment.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331908 - 11/29/08 12:42 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
However, religion seems to be one of the anti-drug advocates' strongest weapons. They claim a higher power thinks it's wrong to indulge in these substances. I respond to this with, "Well if it's so wrong, why do these substances occur naturally in our surroundings?"
I have yet to receive a decent counter to this argument.
|
therapture
Tune Up Your Chips and Circuits
Registered: 03/11/08
Posts: 426
Loc: somewhere on the southern...
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331919 - 11/29/08 12:44 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beege said:
and hmmm let's see, how many people die from alcohol each year? What's that? hundreds of thousands? Weird how that's legal, huh?
No kidding, talk about hippocrisy...
Danger to the user is not the question, it's all about the money the government can (or can't) make by legalizing/scheduling a drug.
Alcohol should be illegal, and mushrooms legal, if you go by the factual data on what each does to the human body.
But alas, as with all things, moderation is key.
--------------------
There is nothing but the truth...we are born and we die. Tune up your chips and circuits, you're going to live longer! -Electric Universe "Tune Up"
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9331921 - 11/29/08 12:44 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Oh, I agree Religion is a weapon, but it is surely not the reasoning behind prohibition. Nor has it ever been.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
Beege
gatherer
Registered: 08/02/08
Posts: 4,466
Loc: Germany
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: flip3084]
#9331939 - 11/29/08 12:47 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
no I agree, it's a face they put on for the public but not anything near their true motives. It looks better to say, "We're doing this to protect the public and God himself is behind us!"
I mean, that's a pretty heavy claim if you ask me. If there were a god I wonder how he would respond to such flagrant use of his name for a cause that is so immoral, unjust, and unnatural.
|
flip3084
greenteajunkie4life
Registered: 11/17/08
Posts: 2,019
Loc: North Augusta, SC
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: "Pot Shops outnumber Starbucks in SF" [Re: Beege]
#9332009 - 11/29/08 01:01 PM (15 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I love the way you said" if there were a god"... Burden of proof, allways lies with those who make the claims... There still strugling with the proof part.
--------------------
Nam-myoho-renge-kyo
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
I_am_Hymn
supra
mantis
SalviaEngland