Says who?Turquoise wrote:
Because bans don't work. At least with pot, the cost of enforcing the ban is more than the net cost of making it legal and taxed.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Mexico?Dilbert_X wrote:
Says who?Turquoise wrote:
Because bans don't work. At least with pot, the cost of enforcing the ban is more than the net cost of making it legal and taxed.
Because one is a pure deficit and the other is the cost of legislation/enforcement + tax?Dilbert_X wrote:
Says who?Turquoise wrote:
Because bans don't work. At least with pot, the cost of enforcing the ban is more than the net cost of making it legal and taxed.
LMAO holy crap you must be trolling...you just cannot be serious. Or do you have shares in a candle company or something? Fuckin' hell.lowing wrote:
Already addressed that, make prison PRISON! and not a rec center. minimal cost. Hell do preisoners even really NEED electricity?
shall we add medieval to the list?lowing wrote:
The one thing out of all of Ruis's bullshit that is true is, he said I was prejudiced in my attitude.
It wasn't bullshit, you just failed to answer any of my questions. Sorry about that.
Hmmm..how about using some of the defence budget to pay for vets benefits...I don't want my tax dollars going to THAT!lowing wrote:
vets benefits
Again you are being totally inconsistent. For some reason you have a chip on your shoulder about the drug bogeyman, but what about people engaged in other behaviour that costs me and I'm supposed to pay for it, even though I don't approve of it? It is EXACTLY the same principle with alcoholics, smokers, people addicted to eating (yeah, the fat people again but you'll notice I'm not saying being fat and taking drugs is THE SAME THING. but both behaviours potentially increase my costs), and so on.lowing wrote:
I choose not to do drugs, yet you insist I pay for it anyway? Don't think that is right. Sorry. I made my choice and I live with it. You make yours and you live with that.
Imagine I am Mr. Healthy. I eat organic. I don't drive. I bike everywhere. I don't eat fast food, I don't drink or smoke. So according to you (and in fact for your to be consistent you would have to hold this same opinion) I'd be within my rights to bitch about my tax dollars going to subsidise roads, medical care for obesity and smoking, etc? If you DON'T think so then you are just not at all being consistent or logical.
People engage in stupid irresponsible unhealthy behaviour ALL THE TIME. Letting them do that is part of living in a free society. If smokers pay extra tax on their pot or cigs then fine, that money can go to their health care. Ditto for legal drugs. That tax money doesn't need to go to education or veterans ffs - smokers pay the tax, they BENEFIT from the tax. Fair enough, no? In fact why the hell should that tax money go to veterans etc? If yo drive and pay road tax it would make more sense for that tax to go to paying for the upkeep of roads, no?
And YET AGAIN, why does your acocuntability stop at drug users. Why not smokers, overeaters, and so on? Cos earlier you said:lowing wrote:
This is about accountability. Bottom line, who do you propose we hold accountable for the actions of those that choose the path of drug abuse. I say the drug abuser, what say you?
So how about you sticking to your 'principles' and extending them to cover all forms of self-induced harmful behaviour?lowing wrote:
Tell ya what, how about you solve your fuckin problems and I will solve mine deal? Especially those problems that are self induced.
Apart from your insistence on self-responsibility at teh expense of everything else like living in a society that cares about people, I wonder do you have any other explantion regarding this point I made which you ignored earlier? Is that less than one tax dollar so important that you'd rather have alkies and druggies on the streets molesting your family as they walk on by? REALLY? You're not prepared to make society better by paying that one dollar? You'd rather pay ten dollars and just lock everyone up in a medieval dungeon? More costs for you and your country, and less security, never mind more unhappy people and a fractious society...all for your measly buck. hmmmmmm...oooookay. totally logical, yeah.ruisleipa wrote:
it's weird cos you're advocating a society where potentially there are LOADS of bums, alocholics, druggies and so on, people you onbviously hate for some reason, cluttering up the streets and making life worse for honest joes like yourself. I don't get it.
Welcome to lowing's reality! 1984 is back on the agenda.
Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-04-10 23:59:23)
Put the money made on pot taxes towards drug rehab.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
Hardly. The only reason why it's got anywhere near the ballot is because California's economy is fucked and they desperately need some income.Pubic wrote:
Put the money made on pot taxes towards drug rehab.
Problem solved.
or mabe people woke up an thought hang on why the fucks this illegal?ghettoperson wrote:
Hardly. The only reason why it's got anywhere near the ballot is because California's economy is fucked and they desperately need some income.Pubic wrote:
Put the money made on pot taxes towards drug rehab.
Problem solved.
meth. you can make that at home also.Harmor wrote:
So after pot is legalized and taxed, which drug should we try to legalize next?
To an extent. However I don't think it would have gotten the support it has if Califonia hadn't been in such a shit state.LostFate wrote:
or mabe people woke up an thought hang on why the fucks this illegal?ghettoperson wrote:
Hardly. The only reason why it's got anywhere near the ballot is because California's economy is fucked and they desperately need some income.Pubic wrote:
Put the money made on pot taxes towards drug rehab.
Problem solved.
Heroin and opium, it like totally comes from flowers dude. FLOWERS!11 Bravo wrote:
meth. you can make that at home also.Harmor wrote:
So after pot is legalized and taxed, which drug should we try to legalize next?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Okay look.
The pro-freedom side of me says that its in my belief system that no substance should be outlawed by a government. It is your choice to put whatever substance you want into your body.
However, i can only see this causing a huge stir in the pot of society. Everyone will be smoking pot. 99.5% of the damn population. For those who simply don't like the drug, it would get pretty annoying. I don't want to generalize here either, but all the big potheads i know, are sleezy annoying lazy scummy people. And im not saying that everyone who smokes pot is, but it makes you wonder.
Also, yes it would put drug dealers out of business, but it would open up a new market. I see such an enormous potential for making fuck loads of money if pot was legalized, and would certainly want to get in on that action.
The pro-freedom side of me says that its in my belief system that no substance should be outlawed by a government. It is your choice to put whatever substance you want into your body.
However, i can only see this causing a huge stir in the pot of society. Everyone will be smoking pot. 99.5% of the damn population. For those who simply don't like the drug, it would get pretty annoying. I don't want to generalize here either, but all the big potheads i know, are sleezy annoying lazy scummy people. And im not saying that everyone who smokes pot is, but it makes you wonder.
Also, yes it would put drug dealers out of business, but it would open up a new market. I see such an enormous potential for making fuck loads of money if pot was legalized, and would certainly want to get in on that action.
15 more years! 15 more years!
because its not like heroin is completely different and goes through a radical chemical process or anything right?Dilbert_X wrote:
Heroin and opium, it like totally comes from flowers dude. FLOWERS!11 Bravo wrote:
meth. you can make that at home also.Harmor wrote:
So after pot is legalized and taxed, which drug should we try to legalize next?
@mitch "Everyone will be smoking pot. 99.5% of the damn population." what makes you think more people are going to smoke pot? its already readily available (much easier for a teenager to get marijuana off the black market than alcohol or cigarettes which are legal) and pretty lenient in california anyway. sure a few more people may start smoking on occasion. legalizing it would just let people 'come out of the closet'
i dont think there would be that much of an increase in people smoking
see: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p3099640
i dont think there would be that much of an increase in people smoking
see: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 0#p3099640
Errr its not good for your health. Just like alcohol or tabac. All are bad.
lol.krazed wrote:
at least drunks dont stink like burning garbage bags
Drunk people smell soooooooo much worse than people who are high.
Weed smells nice.
x2, rather smell some freshly burnt cali treez than nasty alcohol lol. (inb4 someone says you can get high off lingering smoke even though you cant)Peter wrote:
lol.krazed wrote:
at least drunks dont stink like burning garbage bags
Drunk people smell soooooooo much worse than people who are high.
Weed smells nice.
No. People who still don't pot, won't do pot anyway. Actually LESS people will smoke pot because it will lose its "cool" factor amongst the oh so intelligent rebellious teens. It's not that hard to find if you know the right people. If people are dumb enough to come to work stoned, they don't deserve the job anyway.Mitch wrote:
However, i can only see this causing a huge stir in the pot of society. Everyone will be smoking pot. 99.5% of the damn population. For those who simply don't like the drug, it would get pretty annoying. I don't want to generalize here either, but all the big potheads i know, are sleezy annoying lazy scummy people. And im not saying that everyone who smokes pot is, but it makes you wonder.
Just legalize the damn thing and make some money.
We do though.... but that tiny amount you pay in income taxes for rehabs isn't so bad is it? And if you buy any of the offending products, paying taxes on them to cover rehabs isn't so unfair either, eh?lowing wrote:
You are doing nothing except proving my point.....We hadda KICK people off of welfare and FORCE them into being responsible.Turquoise wrote:
Except for the fact that most people on welfare spend a relatively short time on it.lowing wrote:
Disagree, as proven by our current welfare state. The more you relieve people of their responsibilities the more they will let you. Then they will migrate further toward irresponsibility. Consequences for your actions is the only true governance.
Also, welfare reforms put into place during the 90s limit how much you can get and for how long.
This is about accountability. Bottom line, who do you propose we hold accountable for the actions of those that choose the path of drug abuse. I say the drug abuser, what say you?
Following that logic, alcohol and cigarettes should be gateway drugs.Harmor wrote:
You know probably most pot users are poor to lower-middle class...so if you legalize it how else are you going to tax them?
Lotteries and scratch'em tickets can only extract so much...
--
As for the gateway issue. I'm not sure it would matter if you could buy pot next to the milk at Wal-mart vs. the dealer in your local Olive Garden. I could be wrong though, I would just need more proof.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-11 10:07:13)
Hallucinogens probably...Harmor wrote:
So after pot is legalized and taxed, which drug should we try to legalize next?
Bingo... also, the point about Mexico is true as well.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Because one is a pure deficit and the other is the cost of legislation/enforcement + tax?Dilbert_X wrote:
Says who?Turquoise wrote:
Because bans don't work. At least with pot, the cost of enforcing the ban is more than the net cost of making it legal and taxed.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-04-11 10:09:25)
lol my exact thoughtsCybargs wrote:
No. People who still don't pot, won't do pot anyway. Actually LESS people will smoke pot because it will lose its "cool" factor amongst the oh so intelligent rebellious teens. It's not that hard to find if you know the right people. If people are dumb enough to come to work stoned, they don't deserve the job anyway.Mitch wrote:
However, i can only see this causing a huge stir in the pot of society. Everyone will be smoking pot. 99.5% of the damn population. For those who simply don't like the drug, it would get pretty annoying. I don't want to generalize here either, but all the big potheads i know, are sleezy annoying lazy scummy people. And im not saying that everyone who smokes pot is, but it makes you wonder.
Just legalize the damn thing and make some money.
you did not answer my question.......who do you want to hold accountable for the actions of drug abusers, I choose the drug abuser, who do you chose?Turquoise wrote:
We do though.... but that tiny amount you pay in income taxes for rehabs isn't so bad is it? And if you buy any of the offending products, paying taxes on them to cover rehabs isn't so unfair either, eh?lowing wrote:
You are doing nothing except proving my point.....We hadda KICK people off of welfare and FORCE them into being responsible.Turquoise wrote:
Except for the fact that most people on welfare spend a relatively short time on it.
Also, welfare reforms put into place during the 90s limit how much you can get and for how long.
This is about accountability. Bottom line, who do you propose we hold accountable for the actions of those that choose the path of drug abuse. I say the drug abuser, what say you?Following that logic, alcohol and cigarettes should be gateway drugs.Harmor wrote:
You know probably most pot users are poor to lower-middle class...so if you legalize it how else are you going to tax them?
Lotteries and scratch'em tickets can only extract so much...
--
As for the gateway issue. I'm not sure it would matter if you could buy pot next to the milk at Wal-mart vs. the dealer in your local Olive Garden. I could be wrong though, I would just need more proof.
Last edited by lowing (2010-04-11 12:57:08)
99% = abusers and consumers of the drugs involved... 1% = rest of societylowing wrote:
you did not answer my question.......who do you want to hold accountable for the actions of drug abusers, I choose the drug abuser, who do you chose?Turquoise wrote:
We do though.... but that tiny amount you pay in income taxes for rehabs isn't so bad is it? And if you buy any of the offending products, paying taxes on them to cover rehabs isn't so unfair either, eh?lowing wrote:
You are doing nothing except proving my point.....We hadda KICK people off of welfare and FORCE them into being responsible.
This is about accountability. Bottom line, who do you propose we hold accountable for the actions of those that choose the path of drug abuse. I say the drug abuser, what say you?Following that logic, alcohol and cigarettes should be gateway drugs.Harmor wrote:
You know probably most pot users are poor to lower-middle class...so if you legalize it how else are you going to tax them?
Lotteries and scratch'em tickets can only extract so much...
--
As for the gateway issue. I'm not sure it would matter if you could buy pot next to the milk at Wal-mart vs. the dealer in your local Olive Garden. I could be wrong though, I would just need more proof.
Sorry unacceptable to me, I assume no responsibility for the actions of others, as I blame no ne else for my one actionsTurquoise wrote:
99% = abusers and consumers of the drugs involved... 1% = rest of societylowing wrote:
you did not answer my question.......who do you want to hold accountable for the actions of drug abusers, I choose the drug abuser, who do you chose?Turquoise wrote:
We do though.... but that tiny amount you pay in income taxes for rehabs isn't so bad is it? And if you buy any of the offending products, paying taxes on them to cover rehabs isn't so unfair either, eh?lowing wrote:
You are doing nothing except proving my point.....We hadda KICK people off of welfare and FORCE them into being responsible.
This is about accountability. Bottom line, who do you propose we hold accountable for the actions of those that choose the path of drug abuse. I say the drug abuser, what say you?
Following that logic, alcohol and cigarettes should be gateway drugs.
You pay for prisons, even though I'm assuming you've never had to go to one.lowing wrote:
Sorry unacceptable to me, I assume no responsibility for the actions of others, as I blame no ne else for my one actionsTurquoise wrote:
99% = abusers and consumers of the drugs involved... 1% = rest of societylowing wrote:
you did not answer my question.......who do you want to hold accountable for the actions of drug abusers, I choose the drug abuser, who do you chose?
Precedent suggests that once its legal, usage will drop over time - once the novelty factor has worn off, of course.