Mr. President! Governator! Here's the answer
-
Back in 1933, FDR needed to increase the income of the US to at least partially balance the record amounts of money he was spending trying to shore up the economy. So he got the 21st Amendment passed, re-legalizing the sale of alcohol in the U.S.of A. (And putting Eliot Ness out of work.) In a year, half a billion dollars had poured into the general coffers of the U.S. States that also taxed the same of alcoholic beverages, likewise were raking in a little dough. By 1936, taxes on alcohol amounted to 13% of the revenues of the U.S! And we weren't paying all those Untouchables' salaries, either. Okay, here's a not very tricking question: What is the largest cash crop grown in America, today? It has more value that wheat and corn put together. The answer is, of course, marijuana. A 2005 analysis by Harvard visiting professor Jeffrey Miron estimates that if the United States legalized marijuana, the country would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and could generated as much as $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco. Click[^] Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. It's valued at $14 billion annually, or nearly twice the value of the state's grape and vegetable crops combined, according to government statistics. But instead of sharing in this profit center, California spends billions of dollars enforcing laws against growing and selling it. And a billion more, at least, paying to house these hardcore criminal horticulturalists. Maybe Michael Phelps was trying to tell our leaders to tune in, get high, and break even?
Shame it'll never happen, in the UK at least. Just upgraded to a class B, which went against all advice given to the government by their advisers. Along with a new TV campaign which lists the "downsides" - not a single one of which isn't also caused by alcohol, apart from "the giggles", which I fail to see the downside of. There is no good reason for marijuana to be illegal.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
Shame it'll never happen, in the UK at least. Just upgraded to a class B, which went against all advice given to the government by their advisers. Along with a new TV campaign which lists the "downsides" - not a single one of which isn't also caused by alcohol, apart from "the giggles", which I fail to see the downside of. There is no good reason for marijuana to be illegal.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Phannon wrote:
There is no good reason for marijuana to be illegal.
...or heroin or opium. We should legalize it all.
-
Phannon wrote:
There is no good reason for marijuana to be illegal.
...or heroin or opium. We should legalize it all.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Shannons have a much longer history of successfully doing so than do the Gadziemskis
Ah, but me dear mother came from the Moores who have a long history of owning Shannon villeins.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Ah, but me dear mother came from the Moores who have a long history of owning Shannon villeins.
ROFL!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.
-
Yup, control it, tax it, it would kill the black market.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Yup, just like cigarette taxes have killed the cigarette smuggling business. :rolleyes:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Yup, just like cigarette taxes have killed the cigarette smuggling business. :rolleyes:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
Ok, maybe I worded that a little strongly, but it would have an impact. Prohibition simply does not work. If people want to buy a substance from a street dealer then that would be their choice. Would you rather go to a licensed pub for a beer or buy homebrew from a guy in a hoody because it's cheaper? Do you see my point?
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
-
Yup, control it, tax it, it would kill the black market.
He who makes a beast out of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man
Yeah, because just what the world needs are more people on opiates and dope. The best part is when they drive cars and operate heavy machinery or work at jobs with high importance. I think health care systems have ample capacity to handle the influx of drug patients. I know I just love my taxable income being spent on stuff like that. I don't think taxes are high enough...
-
Oakman wrote:
"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." ~ Thomas Jefferson
You're using Jefferson to defend taxing vice to support government over-spending? Weird... The only connection this has to Jefferson is that once the blithering liberal and libertarian idiocy behind it all finally destroys whats left of American civilization altogether, we survivors will be able to reinstitute true Jeffersonian democracy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
on one hand you say "if you don't work you starve" and then you don't want people saying "this isn't good for you, but we are legalising it, if you take it that's your problem, plus you pay taxes on it". isn't personal responsibility one of the fundamental tenets of the conservative creed ? aren't you contradicting yourself here?
-
Yeah, because just what the world needs are more people on opiates and dope. The best part is when they drive cars and operate heavy machinery or work at jobs with high importance. I think health care systems have ample capacity to handle the influx of drug patients. I know I just love my taxable income being spent on stuff like that. I don't think taxes are high enough...
73Zeppelin wrote:
I don't think taxes are high enough...
relocate to the US of A, we'll soon be able to correct this problem for you.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Back in 1933, FDR needed to increase the income of the US to at least partially balance the record amounts of money he was spending trying to shore up the economy. So he got the 21st Amendment passed, re-legalizing the sale of alcohol in the U.S.of A. (And putting Eliot Ness out of work.) In a year, half a billion dollars had poured into the general coffers of the U.S. States that also taxed the same of alcoholic beverages, likewise were raking in a little dough. By 1936, taxes on alcohol amounted to 13% of the revenues of the U.S! And we weren't paying all those Untouchables' salaries, either. Okay, here's a not very tricking question: What is the largest cash crop grown in America, today? It has more value that wheat and corn put together. The answer is, of course, marijuana. A 2005 analysis by Harvard visiting professor Jeffrey Miron estimates that if the United States legalized marijuana, the country would save $7.7 billion in law enforcement costs and could generated as much as $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco. Click[^] Marijuana is California's largest cash crop. It's valued at $14 billion annually, or nearly twice the value of the state's grape and vegetable crops combined, according to government statistics. But instead of sharing in this profit center, California spends billions of dollars enforcing laws against growing and selling it. And a billion more, at least, paying to house these hardcore criminal horticulturalists. Maybe Michael Phelps was trying to tell our leaders to tune in, get high, and break even?
Plus if it were legal, we could get high without having to worry about getting arrested and boy that would be fun wouldn't it. But then again, you can't have people all stoned eating Doritos and shit. Those kind of evil monsters deserve to be locked up.
I didn't get any requirements for the signature
-
Yeah, because just what the world needs are more people on opiates and dope. The best part is when they drive cars and operate heavy machinery or work at jobs with high importance. I think health care systems have ample capacity to handle the influx of drug patients. I know I just love my taxable income being spent on stuff like that. I don't think taxes are high enough...
73Zeppelin wrote:
Yeah, because just what the world needs are more people on opiates and dope.
It's doubtful that the result would be more people, although those people would be less likely to die, and less likely to commit crime. In my mind, it's not about accepting something, it's about better controlling it, and limiting the cost to society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So wait a second ? You agree with SOME levels of government control of people's lives then ? The 'war on drugs' costs your society far more than a policy of allowing some drugs ever could. I personally do not even smoke/drink, but I'd rather not see my tax dollars wasted, people turned into criminals for victimless actions, and people who are addicts, marginalized so they are unable to seek support.
The point is that collectivism leads to exploding budget deficits which leads to rationalizing the legalization of some sort of vice so that we can make a little money off of it so that we can afford more collectivism. Anyone who cannot see whats wrong with that plan is seriously stupid. It ain't gonna work. And you have to be insanely idiotic to believe that it will. The only real question is how long will people continue to entertain this kind of utterly unworkable lunacy? It is berift of even the slightest shred of intelligent insight. When will the simple instinct for self preservation begin to kick in? All I can do is stand with slack jawed bewilderment at the bizarre intellectual rot that pervades my civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:32 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
It ain't gonna work.
As opposed to how well prohibition was working and the war on Drugs still is? And that was the exact point Jefferson was making. You know, the real life Jefferson, not the fictional Shannonantisyland one that you like to imagine existed.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Yeah, because just what the world needs are more people on opiates and dope.
It's doubtful that the result would be more people, although those people would be less likely to die, and less likely to commit crime. In my mind, it's not about accepting something, it's about better controlling it, and limiting the cost to society.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
on one hand you say "if you don't work you starve" and then you don't want people saying "this isn't good for you, but we are legalising it, if you take it that's your problem, plus you pay taxes on it". isn't personal responsibility one of the fundamental tenets of the conservative creed ? aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
on one hand you say "if you don't work you starve" and then you don't want people saying "this isn't good for you, but we are legalising it, if you take it that's your problem, plus you pay taxes on it". isn't personal responsibility one of the fundamental tenets of the conservative creed ? aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Personal responsibility includes being socially responsible - that means, supporting those rules and standards legally established by your fellow citizens for the purpose of defining what makes civilization 'civil', even when you disagree with them. It is entirely meaningless to claim to be personally responsible, but give license to every form of irresponsible behavior, taxed or not. But, that really has nothing to do with the point I am making. The point is that liberal economics is failing, so we are going to try to fix it by taxing irresponsible behavior. The notion that the government is therefore going to have enough money is preposterous. It will still need more money and will have to find even more irresponsible behavior to tax. That is, as responsible citizens, we will have to tolerate ever more irresponsible conduct merely to continue to fund a failing system. What do we do after people simply refuse to become any more depraved? What do we tax than? What this really proves is that liberalims has simply failed. If we want to legalized drugs, fine, but don't do it in order to fund a failed system. Do it because you just like living in a society full of drug addicts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It ain't gonna work.
As opposed to how well prohibition was working and the war on Drugs still is? And that was the exact point Jefferson was making. You know, the real life Jefferson, not the fictional Shannonantisyland one that you like to imagine existed.
led mike wrote:
As opposed to how well prohibition was working and the war on Drugs still is? And that was the exact point Jefferson was making. You know, the real life Jefferson, not the fictional Shannonantisyland one that you like to imagine existed.
That isn't the point at all. The point is the system is broke. The reason you even need to tax dope is becuase the system is broke. You aren't going to fix it by taxing irresponsible behavior. You're simply going to have a failed system with even more irresponsible behavior. It has nothing to do with Jefferson, or hemp or prohibition or anything else. The system is completely and utterly broken, taxing dope is not going to make any fucking difference.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm pretty sure that the Shannons have a much longer history of successfully doing so than do the Gadziemskis
Ah, but me dear mother came from the Moores who have a long history of owning Shannon villeins.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Ah, but me dear mother came from the Moores who have a long history of owning Shannon villeins.
No, I'm actually pretty damn sure we were top of the food chain.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Because the good ol' Christian Right is always blameless, huh.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Because the good ol' Christian Right is always blameless, huh.
No, just more rational.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Otto von Drunkencoder wrote:
on one hand you say "if you don't work you starve" and then you don't want people saying "this isn't good for you, but we are legalising it, if you take it that's your problem, plus you pay taxes on it". isn't personal responsibility one of the fundamental tenets of the conservative creed ? aren't you contradicting yourself here?
Personal responsibility includes being socially responsible - that means, supporting those rules and standards legally established by your fellow citizens for the purpose of defining what makes civilization 'civil', even when you disagree with them. It is entirely meaningless to claim to be personally responsible, but give license to every form of irresponsible behavior, taxed or not. But, that really has nothing to do with the point I am making. The point is that liberal economics is failing, so we are going to try to fix it by taxing irresponsible behavior. The notion that the government is therefore going to have enough money is preposterous. It will still need more money and will have to find even more irresponsible behavior to tax. That is, as responsible citizens, we will have to tolerate ever more irresponsible conduct merely to continue to fund a failing system. What do we do after people simply refuse to become any more depraved? What do we tax than? What this really proves is that liberalims has simply failed. If we want to legalized drugs, fine, but don't do it in order to fund a failed system. Do it because you just like living in a society full of drug addicts.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
You know nothing about the marijuana culture. Absolutely nothing, so shut up.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Christian Graus wrote:
So wait a second ? You agree with SOME levels of government control of people's lives then ? The 'war on drugs' costs your society far more than a policy of allowing some drugs ever could. I personally do not even smoke/drink, but I'd rather not see my tax dollars wasted, people turned into criminals for victimless actions, and people who are addicts, marginalized so they are unable to seek support.
The point is that collectivism leads to exploding budget deficits which leads to rationalizing the legalization of some sort of vice so that we can make a little money off of it so that we can afford more collectivism. Anyone who cannot see whats wrong with that plan is seriously stupid. It ain't gonna work. And you have to be insanely idiotic to believe that it will. The only real question is how long will people continue to entertain this kind of utterly unworkable lunacy? It is berift of even the slightest shred of intelligent insight. When will the simple instinct for self preservation begin to kick in? All I can do is stand with slack jawed bewilderment at the bizarre intellectual rot that pervades my civilization.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:32 PM
Marijana needs to be legal in the first place, and there should be no taxes except sales tax.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
You know nothing about the marijuana culture. Absolutely nothing, so shut up.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
CSS_Shadow(); wrote:
You know nothing about the marijuana culture. Absolutely nothing, so shut up.
Marijuana culture destroyed my family and many other families in the area I grew up in. So you shut up.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.