"Ending prohibition" is in essence decriminalization. It does not legitimize the sale or personal possession, therefore the trade of marijuana will remain in the black market and proceeds would continue to benefit organized crime such as gangs and cartels.
As I said above, legalize it, regulate it and tax it. This policy legitimizes the sale, and incorporates a number of related issues into the debate and policy initiative, such as health, economic and judicial costs/strains. You can form a much more comprehensive policy this way, that actually addresses the issues. Then again, this is a serious discussion for people interested pubic policy development, not for an egomaniac who subscribes to a right-wing tin-foil hat view of the world, and takes a completely unrealistic libertarian stance on government. Which brings me to my last point:
I'm done with your bullshit, so don't be surprised when I fail to respond to your next post.
0
"Ending prohibition" is in essence decriminalization. It does not legitimize the sale or personal possession, therefore the trade of marijuana will remain in the black market and proceeds would continue to benefit organized crime such as gangs and cartels.
As I said above, legalize it, regulate it and tax it. This policy legitimizes the sale, and incorporates a number of related issues into the debate and policy initiative, such as health, economic and judicial costs/strains. You can form a much more comprehensive policy this way, that actually addresses the issues. Then again, this is a serious discussion for people interested pubic policy development, not for an egomaniac who subscribes to a right-wing tin-foil hat view of the world, and takes a completely unrealistic libertarian stance on government. Which brings me to my last point:
I'm done with your bullshit, so don't be surprised when I fail to respond to your next post.
"Ending prohibition" is in essence decriminalization. It does not legitimize the sale or personal possession, therefore the trade of marijuana will remain in the black market and proceeds would continue to benefit organized crime such as gangs and cartels.
As I said above, legalize it, regulate it and tax it. This policy legitimizes the sale, and incorporates a number of related issues into the debate and policy initiative, such as health, economic and judicial costs/strains. You can form a much more comprehensive policy this way, that actually addresses the issues. Then again, this is a serious discussion for people interested pubic policy development, not for an egomaniac who subscribes to a right-wing tin-foil hat view of the world, and takes a completely unrealistic libertarian stance on government. Which brings me to my last point:
I'm done with your bullshit, so don't be surprised when I fail to respond to your next post.
we wont see you at the pancake social?
0
Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
"Ending prohibition" is in essence decriminalization. It does not legitimize the sale or personal possession, therefore the trade of marijuana will remain in the black market and proceeds would continue to benefit organized crime such as gangs and cartels.
As I said above, legalize it, regulate it and tax it. This policy legitimizes the sale, and incorporates a number of related issues into the debate and policy initiative, such as health, economic and judicial costs/strains. You can form a much more comprehensive policy this way, that actually addresses the issues. Then again, this is a serious discussion for people interested pubic policy development, not for an egomaniac who subscribes to a right-wing tin-foil hat view of the world, and takes a completely unrealistic libertarian stance on government. Which brings me to my last point:
I'm done with your bullshit, so don't be surprised when I fail to respond to your next post.
And like your other post in this thread where you announced to the world that this bores you and you are not interested in the topic, so it begs the question, why keep opening the thread and commenting on it?
sounds like a personal problem
Good one..attack more be easy. These threads go in this direction every single time. Thats all I said.
Those against pot get attacked and ridiculed. I dont think a single person against legalizing pot has made any personal remarks or negative comment. I referenced the thread because this is like 10 of the same thing.
You and a few others come in and try to throw the medical schtick or how pot can make more clothes or paper or whatever else as a means to justify your addiction. Addiction is the correct word because as mentioned, if you were SERIOUS about the medical concern then you would be willing to give it up to get your goal..which you are not. Addictions can be mild to severe and it has been noted that pot has these qualities.
I see absolutely no reason to legalize recreational use of this..no tangents, no qualifiers (cigs, alkie) just speaking ONLY about pot.
0
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
And like your other post in this thread where you announced to the world that this bores you and you are not interested in the topic, so it begs the question, why keep opening the thread and commenting on it?
sounds like a personal problem
Good one..attack more be easy. These threads go in this direction every single time. Thats all I said.
Those against pot get attacked and ridiculed. I dont think a single person against legalizing pot has made any personal remarks or negative comment. I referenced the thread because this is like 10 of the same thing.
You and a few others come in and try to throw the medical schtick or how pot can make more clothes or paper or whatever else as a means to justify your addiction. Addiction is the correct word because as mentioned, if you were SERIOUS about the medical concern then you would be willing to give it up to get your goal..which you are not. Addictions can be mild to severe and it has been noted that pot has these qualities.
I see absolutely no reason to legalize recreational use of this..no tangents, no qualifiers (cigs, alkie) just speaking ONLY about pot.
It's the rec users fault that the sick must suffer, no blame should be laid upon the prohibitionist, whom has zero reasoning or facts behind their stance. You know, the stance they have that nobody should be allowed to use marijuana
The worst thing about the pot prohibitionists is that they carry the propaganda with such a grudge, that they can't see the simple facts right in front of their eyes. And society suffers, as hemp gets bundled with marijuana as "don't ask questions, but we the gov't swear that these things are bad and must be banned". However, when you ask the question "why is hemp and mmj bad, and why must they be banned, you'll find no answers.
carry on,,,,,,
0
pot addiction
It's the rec users fault that the sick must suffer, no blame should be laid upon the prohibitionist, whom has zero reasoning or facts behind their stance. You know, the stance they have that nobody should be allowed to use marijuana
The worst thing about the pot prohibitionists is that they carry the propaganda with such a grudge, that they can't see the simple facts right in front of their eyes. And society suffers, as hemp gets bundled with marijuana as "don't ask questions, but we the gov't swear that these things are bad and must be banned". However, when you ask the question "why is hemp and mmj bad, and why must they be banned, you'll find no answers.
"Ending prohibition" is in essence decriminalization. It does not legitimize the sale or personal possession, therefore the trade of marijuana will remain in the black market and proceeds would continue to benefit organized crime such as gangs and cartels.
As I said above, legalize it, regulate it and tax it. This policy legitimizes the sale, and incorporates a number of related issues into the debate and policy initiative, such as health, economic and judicial costs/strains. You can form a much more comprehensive policy this way, that actually addresses the issues. Then again, this is a serious discussion for people interested pubic policy development, not for an egomaniac who subscribes to a right-wing tin-foil hat view of the world, and takes a completely unrealistic libertarian stance on government. Which brings me to my last point:
I'm done with your bullshit, so don't be surprised when I fail to respond to your next post.
yes, when i drub you because of the overwhelming intelligence gap here, you cut your losses and run and hide
What you fail to realize is that, with decriminalizing pot, you remove the excess costs that allow for the cartels to profit. Pot would fall in line with all other ag prices, which is why i use soy and corn as POR.
Swag would cost similar to your regular old swag tomatoes High grade smoke would cost similar to the so called organic produce
So now that pot is decriminalized and the price drops 90-95%, what interest would the cartels have in hustling a product akin to corn?
0
Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
"Ending prohibition" is in essence decriminalization. It does not legitimize the sale or personal possession, therefore the trade of marijuana will remain in the black market and proceeds would continue to benefit organized crime such as gangs and cartels.
As I said above, legalize it, regulate it and tax it. This policy legitimizes the sale, and incorporates a number of related issues into the debate and policy initiative, such as health, economic and judicial costs/strains. You can form a much more comprehensive policy this way, that actually addresses the issues. Then again, this is a serious discussion for people interested pubic policy development, not for an egomaniac who subscribes to a right-wing tin-foil hat view of the world, and takes a completely unrealistic libertarian stance on government. Which brings me to my last point:
I'm done with your bullshit, so don't be surprised when I fail to respond to your next post.
yes, when i drub you because of the overwhelming intelligence gap here, you cut your losses and run and hide
What you fail to realize is that, with decriminalizing pot, you remove the excess costs that allow for the cartels to profit. Pot would fall in line with all other ag prices, which is why i use soy and corn as POR.
Swag would cost similar to your regular old swag tomatoes High grade smoke would cost similar to the so called organic produce
So now that pot is decriminalized and the price drops 90-95%, what interest would the cartels have in hustling a product akin to corn?
I dont see it that way..that the government is holding back to fund the war on drugs. I see pot as a substance that should not be legalized and much like other "solutions" that a legal alternative to its alleged beneficial aspects needs to be investigated and developed.
I get bored of the "cigs or sugar or alkie are bad" rational, I get bored with the pain angle..not making light of their real and legit issue, rather I get bored of the rec user trying to rationalize their substance use by hiding behind the medical need that some feel exists. I also get bored of the "freedoms" angle and saying that pot makes great pants or would put other farmers out of business or whatever else they try to bitch about to make their rec use legal.
If rec users really cared about the pain need then they would be willing to give up their use for the benefit of those that really needed it.
Of course we know the whole thing is just a rouse to complain about the law and try to get it legalized for them.
Wall you miss the point.You may not believe that weed has medicinol properties but those who use it and get relief would tell you otherwise.
Society in general should benifit from legalization both finacially and by allowing law enforcement to focus on crimes with victims. The reacreational debate is silly why is it not possible to benifit society by allowing both user groups usage.I
I believe it is the dogged attitude of non users such as yourself that focuses on the users you can see that don't hide there usage and who's lifestyles and opinions are different than your own, you can't see the millions of users that keep their smoking private and don't go around with bloodshot eyes and impaired speech.
If we use booze as an example, you see the bums on the street hammered you see the folks in the bar slurring their words and acting dumb but that does not make you say we must ban booze for the sake of society.Why must that be the case for pot?
I bet you know someone that you respect and agree with on most stuff who is a closet user and you have no idea. Your opinion of him or her is based on what you know of them as a person how they are and how they act what they feel and what they say but if you knew they used your opinion would change negativley but because they keep it controlled you don't know and therefore don't put them in the box you seem to put all other users in.
Think about it this world has room for all types as a society we have to be more understanding of all differences and not be so damn stubburn that our way is the only way.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
I dont see it that way..that the government is holding back to fund the war on drugs. I see pot as a substance that should not be legalized and much like other "solutions" that a legal alternative to its alleged beneficial aspects needs to be investigated and developed.
I get bored of the "cigs or sugar or alkie are bad" rational, I get bored with the pain angle..not making light of their real and legit issue, rather I get bored of the rec user trying to rationalize their substance use by hiding behind the medical need that some feel exists. I also get bored of the "freedoms" angle and saying that pot makes great pants or would put other farmers out of business or whatever else they try to bitch about to make their rec use legal.
If rec users really cared about the pain need then they would be willing to give up their use for the benefit of those that really needed it.
Of course we know the whole thing is just a rouse to complain about the law and try to get it legalized for them.
Wall you miss the point.You may not believe that weed has medicinol properties but those who use it and get relief would tell you otherwise.
Society in general should benifit from legalization both finacially and by allowing law enforcement to focus on crimes with victims. The reacreational debate is silly why is it not possible to benifit society by allowing both user groups usage.I
I believe it is the dogged attitude of non users such as yourself that focuses on the users you can see that don't hide there usage and who's lifestyles and opinions are different than your own, you can't see the millions of users that keep their smoking private and don't go around with bloodshot eyes and impaired speech.
If we use booze as an example, you see the bums on the street hammered you see the folks in the bar slurring their words and acting dumb but that does not make you say we must ban booze for the sake of society.Why must that be the case for pot?
I bet you know someone that you respect and agree with on most stuff who is a closet user and you have no idea. Your opinion of him or her is based on what you know of them as a person how they are and how they act what they feel and what they say but if you knew they used your opinion would change negativley but because they keep it controlled you don't know and therefore don't put them in the box you seem to put all other users in.
Think about it this world has room for all types as a society we have to be more understanding of all differences and not be so damn stubburn that our way is the only way.
yes, when i drub you because of the overwhelming intelligence gap here, you cut your losses and run and hide
What you fail to realize is that, with decriminalizing pot, you remove the excess costs that allow for the cartels to profit. Pot would fall in line with all other ag prices, which is why i use soy and corn as POR.
Swag would cost similar to your regular old swag tomatoes High grade smoke would cost similar to the so called organic produce
So now that pot is decriminalized and the price drops 90-95%, what interest would the cartels have in hustling a product akin to corn?
Are you dense?
It's still in the black market
Corn and Soy are legal. You can buy them in a store.. Not pot. That's totally a false analogy.
"Overwhelming Intelligence gap"
You are the most arrogent egotistical right wing loon I've ever had the misfortune of conversing with...
...I shouldn't forget abrasive and misguided. Annoying, and full of shit... ok I'll stop, I could be here all day
0
Quote Originally Posted by be easy:
yes, when i drub you because of the overwhelming intelligence gap here, you cut your losses and run and hide
What you fail to realize is that, with decriminalizing pot, you remove the excess costs that allow for the cartels to profit. Pot would fall in line with all other ag prices, which is why i use soy and corn as POR.
Swag would cost similar to your regular old swag tomatoes High grade smoke would cost similar to the so called organic produce
So now that pot is decriminalized and the price drops 90-95%, what interest would the cartels have in hustling a product akin to corn?
Are you dense?
It's still in the black market
Corn and Soy are legal. You can buy them in a store.. Not pot. That's totally a false analogy.
"Overwhelming Intelligence gap"
You are the most arrogent egotistical right wing loon I've ever had the misfortune of conversing with...
...I shouldn't forget abrasive and misguided. Annoying, and full of shit... ok I'll stop, I could be here all day
Listen...two steps ahead in the conversation.. Decriminalization doesn't legitimize the production, distribution, or consumption of marijuana. I would rather have decriminalization than nothing, but that wouldn't divert funds away from gangs & cartels etc. towards education & healthcare etc...which was my question to mr. sunny side in post #40.
0
Listen...two steps ahead in the conversation.. Decriminalization doesn't legitimize the production, distribution, or consumption of marijuana. I would rather have decriminalization than nothing, but that wouldn't divert funds away from gangs & cartels etc. towards education & healthcare etc...which was my question to mr. sunny side in post #40.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
pot addiction
Hot Forum Topics
