still dont give a shit

3/2/2008 11:45:01 PM

"George Bush says 'we are losing the war on drugs'. Well, you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Well, what does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side."

3/4/2008 5:23:26 PM

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: You mean like how some convenience stores sell liquor behind the counter?"

In NC, you have to go to an ABC store to get liquor. You know this.

It would be the same way with marijuana, if not more restricted.

Sorry for busting up your Camel Fires idea.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Because, once again for the people in the back: There's totally no black-market markup as it stands right now."

I heard you the first time. And once again, it will be more expensive than it is now. They will make sure to tax the fuck out of it. You know they will.

Why can't you just admit that, yes, there are some downsides to the legalization of marijuana?

3/5/2008 12:13:47 AM

Quote :

"In NC, you have to go to an ABC store to get liquor. You know this."

Actually, I didn't, given that I've lived here less than a year and most civilized parts of the country do sell it wherever.

Quote :

"I heard you the first time. And once again, it will be more expensive than it is now. They will make sure to tax the fuck out of it. You know they will."

And you're not paying a black-market premium right now?

Here's a thought to chew on - if it's going to be sooooo much more expensive legal than through the current, illegal market - one might expect - and work with me here - a whole tax evasion grey market to spring up - just like with smokes! Whoopee. So if you're really, really going to believe that the black market premium is going to be less than the government tax, don't worry - someone will be happy to meet your need to that regard, too.

Quote :

"Why can't you just admit that, yes, there are some downsides to the legalization of marijuana?"

Because doing so doesn't involve endorsing positively idiotic notions of economics. Sorry to disappoint.

3/5/2008 12:25:59 AM

The reason pot should be legal is the same reason that Vioxx should have been illegal. This has more to do with changing our current irrational drug laws than it has to do with the price of pot in the future.

3/5/2008 7:12:07 AM

^I don't think Vioxx should have been illegal. But, yeah, I see what you mean.

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: And you're not paying a black-market premium right now? Here's a thought to chew on - if it's going to be sooooo much more expensive legal than through the current, illegal market - one might expect - and work with me here - a whole tax evasion grey market to spring up - just like with smokes! Whoopee. So if you're really, really going to believe that the black market premium is going to be less than the government tax, don't worry - someone will be happy to meet your need to that regard, too."

I'm not paying a black-market premium because I don't really smoke enough pot anymore to justify purchasing it for myself.

And, yes, I really, really do believe that the black market premium is going to be less than the government tax. And it will be regulated. Genuine decriminalization is just such a better deal than legalization. If they just decriminalized it, we could grow our own for personal use. Marijuana isn't legalized in Canada; you can't pick up a pack of Camel Fires from the gas station. But somehow they stay pretty fucking high there for cheap. Why are you so eager to bring the government into your marijuana use?

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Actually, I didn't, given that I've lived here less than a year and most civilized parts of the country do sell it wherever."

Ah, so you're a douche bag! Why didn't you just say so from the start?

[Edited on March 5, 2008 at 8:15 AM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2008 8:14:19 AM

Quote :

"Why are you so eager to bring the government into your marijuana use?"

You said you don't smoke weed. That's where you failure to understand the problem that comes into play. Government is already intruding in the way it enforces laws regarding marijuana use. Canada has pretty much the same laws as the US does as far as marijuana goes (some of the more liberal states anyway) they just don't enforce them for shit. Kind of like San Francisco. It's probably pretty hard to get in trouble for smoking weed in that city. I've never actually been there, but from what I hear they don't give a damn about enforcement yet they have the same laws.

I don't know why everyone's bitching about regulation and shit. If they legalized marijuana it would be impossible to regulate perfectly, unlike alcohol, because it's so easy to grow the plants yourself. And I can almost guarantee that 90% of people who smoke pot regularly would have their very own garden to minimize the price they pay to smoke. Plus, it's a very rewarding experience.

3/5/2008 9:53:50 AM

I dont mind legalizing private use of marijuana but I dont want to go to a cigar bar and smell lots of pot being smoked. Or even to be out drinking and smell it. Also why not just charge a flat tax if u grow weed once it is legalized? say 500 dollars a year if u grow pot. let the irs investigate it and if u are caught without paying that tax double it.

3/5/2008 10:16:55 AM

The point I'm trying to establish is that our country has a very dangerous mindset in regards to drug control, where man-made legal drugs kill more people than natural illegal ones. I believe that we should flip these laws on their heads and analyze them for what they are truly worth.

Why is it that pharmaceutical drugs are rushed into our market that have had virtually no long-term testing, but drugs that have had long-term testing remain illegal, even though they do not pose as great of a threat to society.

This makes very little scientific sense.

3/5/2008 11:43:55 AM

Quote :

"IMStoned420: You said you don't smoke weed. That's where you failure to understand the problem that comes into play."

I've gotten three possession charges--two misdemeanors, one felony (which was a mistake). These charges speak to my stupidity and my bad luck. Luckily, none of them translated to convictions.

I'm probably in the 90th percentile of folks when it comes to total marijuana consumption.

Just because I don't smoke anymore, doesn't mean I can't understand the problems associated with the current status of the drug.

Quote :

"IMStoned420: Government is already intruding in the way it enforces laws regarding marijuana use. Canada has pretty much the same laws as the US does as far as marijuana goes (some of the more liberal states anyway) they just don't enforce them for shit. Kind of like San Francisco. It's probably pretty hard to get in trouble for smoking weed in that city. I've never actually been there, but from what I hear they don't give a damn about enforcement yet they have the same laws."

This is exactly what I was saying. Canada has the laws, but they don't enforce them. This is what I mean by decriminalization. Everybody gets high the way they want to get high, and the government butts out. It's not often folks have the opportunity to angle for such circumstances...I assumed a bunch of stoners would totally jump at the chance.

Quote :

"IMStoned420: I don't know why everyone's bitching about regulation and shit. If they legalized marijuana it would be impossible to regulate perfectly, unlike alcohol, because it's so easy to grow the plants yourself. And I can almost guarantee that 90% of people who smoke pot regularly would have their very own garden to minimize the price they pay to smoke. Plus, it's a very rewarding experience."

Again, exactly what I was saying. Under decriminalization circumstances, you could grow your own. With legalization, growing your own might be decidely illegal, according to the way they regulate the drug. Why would you opt for more regulation/laws over loosey goosey decriminalization?

I think it's about the stigma. I think you want/need the government to validate you and your drug of choice with legalization. And that's kind of sad.

3/5/2008 1:04:59 PM

Quote :

"Genuine decriminalization is just such a better deal than legalization. If they just decriminalized it, we could grow our own for personal use. Marijuana isn't legalized in Canada; you can't pick up a pack of Camel Fires from the gas station. But somehow they stay pretty fucking high there for cheap. Why are you so eager to bring the government into your marijuana use?"

Uh, two problems there. One, nothing stipulates that home grow must be illegal under a legalization scheme (plenty of people brew their own beer and grow their own vegetables), and two - awful bold assumption that just because I'm an advocate of marijuana that I'm a user, isn't it?

In fact, it's probably more likely you'd get harassed for a home-grow under decriminalization, because possession isn't legal. Find a big enough stash and suddenly they have you on intent to distribute - ruh-roh, raggy!

Quote :

"Ah, so you're a douche bag! Why didn't you just say so from the start?"

Amazingly, it didn't take me that long to figure out you're an loudmouthed idiot. Funny how things work that way, huh?

[Edited on March 5, 2008 at 1:10 PM. Reason : Really.]

3/5/2008 1:08:13 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI&feature=related

3/5/2008 2:29:39 PM

Quote :

"DrSteveChaos: Uh, two problems there. One, nothing stipulates that home grow must be illegal under a legalization scheme (plenty of people brew their own beer and grow their own vegetables), and two - awful bold assumption that just because I'm an advocate of marijuana that I'm a user, isn't it? In fact, it's probably more likely you'd get harassed for a home-grow under decriminalization, because possession isn't legal. Find a big enough stash and suddenly they have you on intent to distribute - ruh-roh, raggy!"

I don't care if you're a user or not. I say "your marijuana use" as part of my rhetoric.

I want to remind you that we're talking about ifs here. I'm presenting my view of the way I think things will turn out with legalization vs. decriminalization. You think they'll turn out differently. Can you at least acknowledge that it may not be super awesome Camel Fires fun time? You may have to go to an ABMC store that's not open past nine or on Sundays, and you may be taxed out the ass for it to subsidize all sorts of things. And you may be penalized for growing your own. And do you really trust good ole Camel to cultivate marijuana? Do you really want them creating a giant industry out of a plant that you could grow yourself?

Real decriminalization + subsidized medical marijuana for sick folks = ideal

[Edited on March 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM. Reason : sss]

3/5/2008 5:18:57 PM

Quote :

"I want to remind you that we're talking about ifs here. I'm presenting my view of the way I think things will turn out with legalization vs. decriminalization."

And were if's and buts candy and nuts... well, you know how that one goes.

Quote :

"You think they'll turn out differently. Can you at least acknowledge that it may not be super awesome Camel Fires fun time? You may have to go to an ABMC store that's not open past nine or on Sundays, and you may be taxed out the ass for it to subsidize all sorts of things. And you may be penalized for growing your own."

If we are speaking in hypotheticals, it still serves us to evaluate what is more likely a logical outcome than another. And the fact remains - you're still criminally liable under any decriminalization scheme if you grow your own, because possesion is still illegal. All decriminalization means is that we have the status quo, but the cops don't hassle you as much. It still means all the negative aspects of the black market - funnelling money to gangs, having to deal with shady-ass people to obtain the product, paying outrageous black market prices, unpredictable quality, and being criminally liable if you grow your own supply - remain in place.

And the trivial hassles you present are the same as we accept for alcohol right now. Would you advocate bringing back Prohibition so that you might obtain cheaper beer at more hours of the night? Honestly.

Acting like decriminalization gains you all the benefits of legalization with none of the hassles is frankly moronic.

Quote :

"And do you really trust good ole Camel to cultivate marijuana? Do you really want them creating a giant industry out of a plant that you could grow yourself?"

What, pray tell, exactly is stopping you from doing it yourself? Because, as you admit, if marijuana is so easy to grow yourself, what's to stop a plethora of small, independent producers of growing marijuana and selling it at the local bodega, farmer's market, or other local hippie hangout? Arguing against legalization because RJ Reynolds might capitalize on the industry has to be the weakest argument against legalization yet.

No one's pretending life will be perfect under a legalization scheme, but trying to pretend that decriminalization carries benefits over legalization fails to even address what decriminalization actually does - which is to say, "not much."

3/5/2008 5:51:10 PM

^You implied that North Carolina wasn't civilized and called me a loudmouthed idiot. And now you're using the word frankly? You've been pretty fucking frank so far. No need to clarify it. I do understand the need to rely on cliched language in order to up your score on the sassometer...but frankly?

I'm saying that in my opinion real decriminalization is better than legalization. I'm aware of the fact that decriminalization so far hasn't worked out so well--again, I got two misdemeanors and a felony right here in NC where marijuana is supposedly decriminalized.

We haven't even gotten into specifics yet either. Are you looking for the federal government to back off the states so the states who want to can legalize it effectively? Or are you looking for the federal government to force all states to legalize it? City level? County level? State level?

Government doesn't really think weed is bad. They just want our money--so every once in a while, they bust somebody big or small and make them pay some money. They may or may not also stick that somebody with a criminal record...so if he ever gets caught again, they can demand even more money from him. If we decriminalize marijuana and actually get cops to lay off (like tolerate 4 oz. and up to 5 plants in a home), then we can avoid all these fees and missed work. I think the choice to decriminalize is best decided county-by-county, maybe state-by-state.

If we legalize marijuana, we open it up to government regulation. And they collect our money that way. And we end up having to pay for our right to smoke a plant we can grow ourselves, just like we do when it's illegal.

3/6/2008 1:48:51 AM

Quote :

"You implied that North Carolina wasn't civilized and called me a loudmouthed idiot. And now you're using the word frankly? You've been pretty fucking frank so far. No need to clarify it. I do understand the need to rely on cliched language in order to up your score on the sassometer...but frankly?"

Actually, I implied that anywhere that forces you to buy liquor out of an ABC store is "uncivilized," but whatever. As for the loudmouthed idiot part, well allow me to rebut by pointing out that A) You were the first one to start out with playground name-calling, and B) It's accurate.

Quote :

"We haven't even gotten into specifics yet either. Are you looking for the federal government to back off the states so the states who want to can legalize it effectively? Or are you looking for the federal government to force all states to legalize it? City level? County level? State level?"

I'd be perfectly happy if the FedGov just got out of the game and let the state handle it themselves - kind of the same way we handled Alcohol de-Prohibition. States and counties are still free as they want to be as dry (or wet) as they wish. Of course, in practice, it just means folks cross the county line, but the point remains - we have a fairly effective model to follow as it is.

Quote :

"Government doesn't really think weed is bad. They just want our money--so every once in a while, they bust somebody big or small and make them pay some money. They may or may not also stick that somebody with a criminal record...so if he ever gets caught again, they can demand even more money from him."

Don't you think if this was about the government collecting money it would just be easier for everyone involved to just legalize and tax it already? Do you really think the cost of enforcement, pitted against what fees they manage to extract, truly outweigh what a normal excise tax would bring in?

The hysteria of the drug warriors indicates it's exactly the opposite of what you're saying. For the Prohibitionists, this really is a moral crusade, and Marijuana is simply the first beachhead of a perceived all-out assault on our way of life.

Quote :

"If we decriminalize marijuana and actually get cops to lay off (like tolerate 4 oz. and up to 5 plants in a home), then we can avoid all these fees and missed work. I think the choice to decriminalize is best decided county-by-county, maybe state-by-state."

I agree with you on the means by which we should address the issue. And this is exactly the process which we dealt with alcohol, and it's been relatively successful.

Quote :

"If we legalize marijuana, we open it up to government regulation. And they collect our money that way. And we end up having to pay for our right to smoke a plant we can grow ourselves, just like we do when it's illegal."

Again, this is a dumb conclusion that is a complete non-sequitur. Once again - would you bring back Prohibition, a la "decriminalized" alcohol and speakeasies, such that we could all pay a little less for beer?

Look - arguing from the tax angle is basically putting you in right-wing militiamen territory. Legalization means that you can grow it, you can smoke it, or you can run down to the M/ABC store and just buy it if that suits your taste. The same way you can brew your own beer for personal consumption right now.

Even completely granting your argument that this is somehow about revenue, the idea that the government could tax marijuana to a higher price than the current black market completely falls apart - again, if it got to that point, what's to stop a greymarket from popping up right there? What's to stop you from growing your own supply? Clearly, given the ease at which this is done right now, despite a concentrated police effort otherwise, why should we believe it would be more difficult under a legalization regime?

Even proposing the very worst scenario under which only say, licensed operators could legally grow marijuana, this puts us exactly back at where we are with the proposed decriminalization schema. Which means we are still, under legalization, casting aside any benefits, no worse off than under decriminalization.

Further, given that by this premise the government is out to make money, it is clearly in their (political) interest not to jack the price too high and thus compromise demand - almost exactly parallel to the politics of cigarette taxes. (What, you think they want smokers to quit? Fat chance - they need the money too much.)

Decriminalization addresses none of this. Possession and use under decriminalization is still a crime, and chances are the cops will still harass you if they find you growing your own supply, you still have all the problems of the black market I've already pointed out several times, including the fact that you're still paying black market prices.

Which means that decriminalization keeps most of the problems of the status quo but yields almost none of the benefits of legalization. You pay just as much and still have the liability of getting hassled for your habit. It's a non-sequitur position.

3/6/2008 2:35:48 AM

Quote :

"Actually, I implied that anywhere that forces you to buy liquor out of an ABC store is "uncivilized," but whatever. As for the loudmouthed idiot part, well allow me to rebut by pointing out that A) You were the first one to start out with playground name-calling, and B) It's accurate."

1. North Carolina is an "anywhere" that forces you to buy liquor out of an ABC store. Therefore, you implied that North Carolina is uncivilized.

2. Your implication inspired me to call you a douche bag because it's a douche bag move to imply that North Carolina is uncivilized.

So really you started it when you called North Carolina uncivilized.

Seriously, you should move somewhere else.

Douche bag.

3/6/2008 3:43:24 AM

lol, North Carolina is so uncivilized

3/6/2008 8:24:38 AM

Legalization is not just about removing a stigma or a negative connotation associated with a drug, it's about recognizing that some of our drug laws make practically no sense in regards to protecting the health of Americans. If our drug laws exist solely to protect the health of our people, then they should do so correctly. America is picking and choosing what drugs are legal and illegal based on total nonsense. How is it logical that a natural drug that helps soothe a cancer patient's certain death continues to remain illegal, but a drug that is responsible for more vehicular deaths nationwide continues to be completely legal? It's fucking stupid. Either make alcohol illegal or make pot legal. They are not mutually exclusive, and sound reasoning shows that they both can be legal.

[Edited on March 6, 2008 at 9:57 AM. Reason : sp]

3/6/2008 9:56:36 AM

Quote :

"1. North Carolina is an "anywhere" that forces you to buy liquor out of an ABC store. Therefore, you implied that North Carolina is uncivilized. 2. Your implication inspired me to call you a douche bag because it's a douche bag move to imply that North Carolina is uncivilized. So really you started it when you called North Carolina uncivilized. Seriously, you should move somewhere else. Douche bag."

Uh, yeah. Joke about buying liquor from ABC stores means North Carolina is uncivilized.

Jesus Christ, pull the fucking stick out of your ass already, you loudmouthed twat. Nobody wants to hear your shrillness, especially not me.

3/6/2008 10:51:22 AM

Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada are going to legalize recreational thanks to trump.

10/9/2016 7:57:46 PM

it's hard to fathom Nevada making the switch from the strictest drug laws in the nation to full-on legalization. I'm sure people watching on the strip will be that much more entertaining in the future.

10/9/2016 10:41:49 PM

"Yes" is leading in every state

10/9/2016 10:42:32 PM

Quote :

"Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada are going to legalize recreational thanks to trump."

What does Trump have to do with it? I think it's not that partisan of an issue anymore- it hasn't been a disaster in the states that have legalized it and everyone wants a piece of the pie now.

10/9/2016 10:52:28 PM

the same people voting for someone like cruz would be completely against marijana. now, those people aren't even going to show up.

10/9/2016 10:57:52 PM

you should double check the demographics and political leaning of the states that will vote yes. You are giving Trump way too much credit, while ignoring the types of people that support it.

10/10/2016 12:04:36 AM

so what are you saying? You never actually say what you are saying.

10/10/2016 12:12:01 AM

you have some type of learning disability/dyslexia/aphasia. not trying to shame you about it, but if you can't understand the words that I type, which aren't exactly encoded with metaphors and hidden meanings, i suggest medication or medical supervision to help you cope.

10/10/2016 12:41:36 AM

then straight to personal attacks

so predictable

10/10/2016 12:48:57 AM

Quote :

"it's not that partisan of an issue anymore- it hasn't been a disaster in the states that have legalized it and everyone wants a piece of the pie now."

All of those states, aside from AZ will likely go blue in the election, so Trump has zero to do with it. If you were talking about places like AL, MS, NE, or KS, that's a different conversation.

[Edited on October 10, 2016 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .]

10/10/2016 10:54:19 AM

Quote :

"Sessions in prepared remarks today also calls marijuana a "life-wrecking dependency...that’s only slightly less awful" than heroin."

Welp.

3/15/2017 11:56:18 AM

Quote :

"Now that public opinion has shifted on marijuana, rich white men like Boehner and companies like Monsanto are trying to cash in. We can’t let them rake in profits while thousands of people, mostly people of color, continue to sit in jail for possession and use."

https://twitter.com/CynthiaNixon/status/984260567027404802

Cynthia Nixon, the Sex in the City actress now running for guvna of New York, setting the bar on marijuana legalization policy

bold, clear, accurate statements like this one are what the democratic party needs IMO.

4/12/2018 1:17:40 AM

^all non violent drug offenders should be let out prison today no doubt

yeah we shouldnt allow the rich JEWS white men to profit off legal weed

4/12/2018 6:18:29 AM

Way to ruin any positive credibility you had gained with your first statement by following it up with your second. That's some real talent there.

4/12/2018 8:07:40 AM