Constitution Revolution: 2012

[Woodruff]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

Yes, it's much better to keep our prisons chock-full of marijuana criminals, right? Talk about a waste of fucking money.

[Phatscotty]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

Yes, it's much better to keep our prisons chock-full of marijuana criminals, right? Talk about a waste of fucking money.

No, you can't read too good, not to mention your statement is incompatible with my statement...

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. What part of that tells Woodruff "keep it illegal"?

I am for legalization, but NOT regulation. you understand the difference right?

[Phatscotty]

I do not and would not do business with, nor have I ever been raped by any businesses.

That doesn't sound right. What about Wal*Mart?
The Cheese Company that I work for charged $86.00 a pound for the "hand crafted" Goat Cheese that I make. I make just over $10 an hour to produce it. Cost after production and material to make the cheese, is about $10.50 a pound. I make about 5,000 lbs a day. And my raise this year has been postponed because of loses at other factories.* The consumer and the employee both get raped. Someone tried to unionize the employees a few years back, but the only people to show up to his "secret meeting" were some thugs from Chicago and he doesn't work here anymore.

And if you ever bought a house through a relater, bank, or broker, you were raped and didn't even know it.


*my factory made a profit of millions

keyword: choice. I can decide for myself if I want to shop at Walmart or not (and I don't)

When I buy a house, I will certainly be skipping the realtor, the bank, and the broker. I would like to keep that 20 g's in my pocket. I guess I never thought about getting ripped off by them, because I intend to skip them altogether.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't think it matters who shops at Wal*Mart anymore. Everyone gets screwed by them. They've helped take away your choice of where to shop, what to buy, and even where to work.

[Phatscotty]

I don't think it matters who shops at Wal*Mart anymore. Everyone gets screwed by them. They've helped take away your choice of where to shop, what to buy, and even where to work.

yeah, okay, just saying though. I have never been raped by wal-mart.

[GreecePwns]

I don't think it matters who shops at Wal*Mart anymore. Everyone gets screwed by them. They've helped take away your choice of where to shop, what to buy, and even where to work.

yeah, okay, just saying though. I have never been raped by wal-mart.

I never meant you personally when I said raped (I'll admit I could have worded it better - appealing to emotions is for people who manipulators i.e. people who don't know what they are talking about). I was referring to the aspects of the free market that necessarily lead to worse financial conditions for consumers and employees alike. Really you're just standing on semantics now. It appears your revolution is impervious to logical thinking.

[Woodruff]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

Yes, it's much better to keep our prisons chock-full of marijuana criminals, right? Talk about a waste of fucking money.

No, you can't read too good, not to mention your statement is incompatible with my statement...

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. What part of that tells Woodruff "keep it illegal"?

I am for legalization, but NOT regulation. you understand the difference right?

You first stated that "legalization is a lose lose", and then go on to say "I am for legalization, but not regulation". And you have the gall to say that I can't read too good?

I suggest you find yourself a clue, and then hit yourself over the head with it a few times.

[Phatscotty]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would go a long way toward helping our budget. Not only would the tax revenues be phenomenal, but the money saved on that part of the war on drugs would be tremendous.

Not to mention if this happened I could actually try smoking the stuff for the first time.

I can guarantee you the agency, the building, with employees and full bennies will eat up most of that predicted revenue, or at least a large part. Oh and it would create a lot of jobs too, but not the kind we need.

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. Tax the seeds or something (as if sales tax isn't enough). Keep the gov't out of it. We don't need to become a country dependent on gambling and drug revenues. If the gov't runs the dope game, expect prices to go up, supply and quality go down. In the end, nothing changes except more power to an already bloated gov't and less money in peoples pockets.

legalization is a lose lose

You can already get it for very cheap pretty much anywhere. Don't fucking ruin it!!!

Yes, it's much better to keep our prisons chock-full of marijuana criminals, right? Talk about a waste of fucking money.

No, you can't read too good, not to mention your statement is incompatible with my statement...

I propose people should be able to grow it themselves. What part of that tells Woodruff "keep it illegal"?

I am for legalization, but NOT regulation. you understand the difference right?

You first stated that "legalization is a lose lose", and then go on to say "I am for legalization, but not regulation". And you have the gall to say that I can't read too good?

I suggest you find yourself a clue, and then hit yourself over the head with it a few times.

legalization, as it was proposed, in the context it was being discussed in......(tax it tax it) I am against that. There is a middle road.

if you read my entire statement, you can figure this out. If you are just the word police, hope you are having fun!

How about I go to prison for this, and we let a guy who is serving 15 years for smoking a joint out...

Let me be clear. Decriminalize it, and no regulations. That's my position.

Regulation will only grow a gov't that is already too big, while also making the product more expensive. That, is a lose lose IMO.

[Aradhus]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

[Woodruff]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

With no regulation. Because that way, nobody would be doing anything against the law, because there is no law. A perfect society!

[Phatscotty]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

With no regulation. Because that way, nobody would be doing anything against the law, because there is no law. A perfect society!

people can grow it themselves. I suppose I would not be opposed to a permit to grow, even though I am against permits ideologically. Have to realize the way the world is, not how it should be. we can only inch closer or further from what we want. There is no reason to believe there actually wouldn't be a permit for pot growing, and I am safe in assuming, over time, that permit fee would rise dramitically. That will be the reality, but I will argue against the permit to try to make sure they can't turn it into a slush fund that they depend on.

"Permit the pot-heads!" will be the cry of the day.

There are untold 100,00's of thousand of permits for other things, pot won't escape that. Probably local permit, state permit, and federal permit, renewed annually, right?

This way, we deal a severe blow to the Drug Cartels by chopping demand ourselves.

An acre of the best ground for hemp, is to be selected and sewn in hemp and be kept for a permanent hemp patch." - Thomas Jefferson's Garden book 1849

Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere! o George Washington in a note to his gardener at Mount Vernon (1794)

Let these be our calls against the drug cartels. We don't need you to grow it, we well grow it ourselves. I think this is a realistic possibility, and would be hard pressed to think of anything realistic that could benefit all people involved more.

[Aradhus]

Let these be our calls against the drug cartels. We don't need you to grow it, we well grow it ourselves. I think this is a realistic possibility, and would be hard pressed to think of anything realistic that could benefit all people involved more.

Cause with the drug cartels pot is what drives their business. We put a dent in their profits, the rest of their drug empire will crumble. Or they'll coerce the growers into working for their cartel. Win-Win.

[Phatscotty]

Let these be our calls against the drug cartels. We don't need you to grow it, we well grow it ourselves. I think this is a realistic possibility, and would be hard pressed to think of anything realistic that could benefit all people involved more.

Cause with the drug cartels pot is what drives their business. We put a dent in their profits, the rest of their drug empire will crumble. Or they'll coerce the growers into working for their cartel. Win-Win.

gotta start somewhere, no?????

and if that worked, wouldn't our attitudes improve and the environment for change be more likely? no?????

[Phatscotty]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

[thegreekdog]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

You might want to read the article dude.

[Phatscotty]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

With no regulation. Because that way, nobody would be doing anything against the law, because there is no law. A perfect society!

you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.

Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.

[Woodruff]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

Like many home run hitters, Mr Paul would do well to not swing so hard and rather try for a bit more control. That way, he would avoid striking out and looking so bad.

(I thought you were a Rand Paul fan?)

[Phatscotty]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

Like many home run hitters, Mr Paul would do well to not swing so hard and rather try for a bit more control. That way, he would avoid striking out and looking so bad.

(I thought you were a Rand Paul fan?)

Do you propose to fix Social Security and Medicare with a sacrifice bunt?

[Woodruff]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

With no regulation. Because that way, nobody would be doing anything against the law, because there is no law. A perfect society!

you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.
Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.

And when someone starts cutting the product with dangerous chemicals, that will be fine, because with no regulatory laws, there are no laws being broken. But nobody would ever do that, which is why nobody needs regulatory oversight. It's perfect!

[Woodruff]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

Like many home run hitters, Mr Paul would do well to not swing so hard and rather try for a bit more control. That way, he would avoid striking out and looking so bad.

(I thought you were a Rand Paul fan?)

Do you propose to fix Social Security and Medicare with a sacrifice bunt?

I thought they were unfixable? I'm sure I've heard you say that once or twice. But again, I'll ask...I thought you were a Rand Paul fan? That article is not in favor of Rand Paul's submission. In fact, based ONLY on reading that article, I would question Mr Paul's ability to lead effectively.

[Baron Von PWN]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

You might want to read the article dude.

my favorite part. "Why not (8) A bake sale shall be held, $100,000,000,000?"

[thegreekdog]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

You might want to read the article dude.

my favorite part. "Why not (8) A bake sale shall be held, $100,000,000,000?"

It annoys the shit out of me... Paul talks a big game but ends up just like every other jackass representative - all talk, no action. "Oh look at me... I'm cutting shit." God dammit!

[Baron Von PWN]

Rand Paul swings for the fences

You might want to read the article dude.

my favorite part. "Why not (8) A bake sale shall be held, $100,000,000,000?"

It annoys the shit out of me... Paul talks a big game but ends up just like every other jackass representative - all talk, no action. "Oh look at me... I'm cutting shit." God dammit!

It's pretty scary to think a guy making proposals like that could be/is running the most powerful country on earth.

[BigBallinStalin]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

With no regulation. Because that way, nobody would be doing anything against the law, because there is no law. A perfect society!

you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.
Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.

And when someone starts cutting the product with dangerous chemicals, that will be fine, because with no regulatory laws, there are no laws being broken. But nobody would ever do that, which is why nobody needs regulatory oversight. It's perfect!

Yeah, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma and you're assuming that the game isn't coordinated and that everyone is a stranger.

People through trial and error will identify and make known who are the good and bad producers (especially as the internet becomes more readily accessible and transferrable into more and more aspects of daily living). In such a model, one's reputation does matter; otherwise, you'll be sent to court and fined for such an injustice--OH, you're assuming that regulation and laws go hand in hand, but they don't have to.

Now this goes to the question of whether the government should set regulations on every aspect of an industry, or leave it to people themselves to set up reputable companies that would approve the quality of company A or company B's marijuana.

I take it that you're the kind of guy that says that there must be some force to keep people together to make sure they don't rape, pillage, and plunder each other, and that this can only be achieved through regulation via government. Or via what?

[Woodruff]

So corporations would be allowed, under your brilliant idea, to manufacture and sell it?

With no regulation. Because that way, nobody would be doing anything against the law, because there is no law. A perfect society!

you can choose to grow it if you want it. There would be no need for that entire part of the drug issue to exist. It would slash the budget of many federal agencies, and reduce crime immensely. The gov't no longer has that part of the burden on their back, the people are happy, nobody is in prison for smoking a joint, and sales taxes will be generated from it. They will want to permit it, but that's a fight we will be ready for.
Now I just have to motivate a bunch of pot heads.

And when someone starts cutting the product with dangerous chemicals, that will be fine, because with no regulatory laws, there are no laws being broken. But nobody would ever do that, which is why nobody needs regulatory oversight. It's perfect!

Yeah, this is the Prisoner's Dilemma and you're assuming that the game isn't coordinated and that everyone is a stranger.
People through trial and error will identify and make known who are the good and bad producers (especially as the internet becomes more readily accessible and transferrable into more and more aspects of daily living). In such a model, one's reputation does matter; otherwise, you'll be sent to court and fined for such an injustice--OH, you're assuming that regulation and laws go hand in hand, but they don't have to.

And yet, even today WITH SOME REGULATION IN PLACE, what you are stating does take place and yet, "the corporation's reputation does not seem to matter very much. You see, that's the beauty of advertising and presenting misinformation. Which would be even more beautiful in a world where false advertising and misinformation weren't illegal. So I would have to conclude the faith that you and others seem to have in this model are quite and incomprehensibly naive. And knowing you, I don't really understand why that would be the case.

Now this goes to the question of whether the government should set regulations on every aspect of an industry, or leave it to people themselves to set up reputable companies that would approve the quality of company A or company B's marijuana.
I take it that you're the kind of guy that says that there must be some force to keep people together to make sure they don't rape, pillage, and plunder each other, and that this can only be achieved through regulation via government. Or via what?

I'm the kind of guy that recognizes that even with regulations in place, the rape, pillage and plunder is happening and that without regulatory oversight, it could ONLY be worse.

For instance: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/386c255 ... 103af11ab7

Lack of following the regulations led to this problem (as well as lack of following the regulations by those who should have been conducting the mechanical inspections and such)...so certainly, the problem would have occurred without any regulatory oversight.