RE: O/T, Largest Cash Crop

Page 1 of 4  
It has been announced that marijuana is America's largest cash crop, about $35 billion yearly.
Roughly 1/3 of that comes from here in California.
Somehow, I'm missing something.
Think I have a lot of company, especially with people who are charged with taking care of what are called illegal substance issues.
They certainly are missing something.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You mean taking lye off the shelves didn't solve the drug problem?
Perhaps we should take away fertilizer, soil, air, water, heat and light. That oughtta slow them down.
Oh wait... they all ready took away fertilizer.. forget that one.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@nospam.net wrote:

Yep. And they made it difficult for me to get allergy medicine as well- without it, my sinuses often get infected badly enough to end up in the hospital, but now it can only be got during certain hours, and with a photo ID. Sure, they made newer versions of the stuff, but it doesn't work as well, and costs 3-4 times as much.
Far as I'm concerned, they should just let the meth-heads go on and destroy themselves, and leave our products where they are. I know that doesn't have much to do with marijuana, but methamphetamine is the big crusade in my area. Next thing you know, a guy won't be able to get a propane tank for the grill or starter fluid for the car, either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:17:28 -0600, Prometheus wrote:

This whole business of "freedom from the consequences of our own stupidity" being made a "right" by the do-gooders is just getting scarier and scarier.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The only problem I see with this is that our society is (unfortunately) not "wired" for this kind of attitude towards holding people accountable for consequences of their own actions. Sure, drug legalization could occur with this expressed intention and maybe for a few years would work that way. However, the responsibility part will be slowly eroded. It will start with good intentions, "What about the *children*, we can't hold *them* responsible for their irresponsible parents' actions, can we?" So we'll get some form of parental aid for children of parents of addicts. Then, "but they can't afford rehab, we have to *help* so they can re-establish their lives", and voila!, another $100B + government program will be born.
As a strict constructionist, the approach to drug enforcement bothers me. The abuses of constitutional freedoms in pursuit of this enforcement are frightening and, IMHO, are what civil libertarians should be focusing on rather than the actions being taken to protect our country from the terrorists who would kill or maim as many as possible if given the opportunity. At the same time, having seen the devastation drug addiction causes, simple legalization is also frightening. Trying to draw a moral equivalence between drugs and alcohol is nonsense. One can partake of alcohol with no intent of getting drunk -- the same is not true of any use of drugs. In addition, while it is true that some are genetically pre-disposed toward alcoholism, there are drugs for which addiction following only a few "doses" is a near certainty for anyone trying those substance, thus making them readily available is likely to ensnare many who only experiment with them once.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We should think in terms of regulation rather than legalization. Let's American companies produce it, package it, and sell it. We'd then take the business out of the hands of Mexican thugs and murderers. The US government would collect taxes and regulate the sale much like cigarette and alchohol. Not perfect but a vast improvement over what we do now. Mark & Juanita wrote:

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2006-12-20 09:50:56 -0600, Mark & Juanita

Society is not "wired"?

Gak, more interventionist nonsense to justify the concept that people's lives belong to the state. Drugs are wildly legal and more widespread than ever. Responsibility for anti-individual rights and anti-capitalist legislation from republicans like their elimination of responsibility for drug manufacturers and physicians as well as monstrously huge welfare payments to drug companies and hospitals have all made things much worse.
I wonder what the chances are that you would ever take responsibility for your life.

Yawn... not only is it a silly hypothetical founded on the myths of the RNC, but the RNC program costs MUCH MORE. Putting people in prison for their lives for not harming anyone is expensive and immoral.
But you dodge the truth completely. The reason people aren't allowed to self-medicate and the republicans and quasi-republican democrats push forced medication in various forms is because they benefit financially from it. Marijuana is used by such wild, crazy liberal organizations like the Israeli military to treat soldiers with PTSD. It was originally illegal because it was popular among the darkies, and now because it is such an effective medicine.

I've read hundreds of your posts, and like this one you demonstrate that you are the opposite of a strict constructionist. I suppose it is a label and a word that has had its meaning reversed like "left" and "right." Today's right wingers have more in common with marxism than anything else although it remains politically incorrect as a label.

LMAO. Yeah, don't worry, they're not bothering you right? Selfish and a hypocrite of the lowest order. Great advice: don't follow principles except against a threat that is close to meaningless that is other than helping totalitarians take power. I sure am worried about "terrorists." What a yawner.

Yo, simpleton, ALCOHOL IS A DRUG. Alcohol is the most devastating and harmful drug in the US and probably the world. Your doltish, retarded logic about "getting drunk" is contradicted by every piece of anecdotal and medical literature in the world. Every person who has ever taken a painkiller or used marijuana knows it is a grossly dishonest statement, but I bet you don't give a damn. I bet it is just a convenient rationalization to justify your immorality while you parade around calling yourself a "strict constructionist." What monstrous bullshit.

Yawn... you sound like you are posting drunk.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My comments embedded....
Ol Pete wrote:

[snip]
Mark & Juanita's statement above doesn't seem to be advocating "interventionist nonsense." I think they are arguing AGAINST intervention. Did I miss something?

Exactly which myths? The RNC "myths" seem to be truths to me. Hmmm. Putting criminals in prison or not? I choose prison. If the laws are broken, fix the laws, don't allow them to be broken because respect for the law is extremely important. I have a feeling the "$100B program" that mark & Juanita mentioned that triggered your vitriole, was probably a little different than the one you imagine.

That sounds like bovine feces to me. Ecomonic gain is not the reason anyone pushes forced medication.

Funny, I thought today's liberals were closer to Marxist.

As a matter of fact they are bothering me. I'm offended you think of my party as totalitarian. It simply is not true. I do think your hyperbole and extreme passion is a problem, though.

I don't even know mark or Juanita but your response is unfair to them. If you take the problems created by alchohol per drinker, it's less than th eproblems created by users of other drugs, per user. The only reason you can claim that alchohol is the world's most harmful drug is because far far more peopel use it so in absolute numbers you're correct. However, if all those people swithed to another drug, problems would increase.
I like your academic adjectives and terms: "montrous bullshit." That's constructive.

Oh come on. They don't sound drunk. You do. Mark & Juanita have a good point there. It is consistent with thigs I've seen on the discovery channel, news, magazines, etc. Are you saying all of them are incorrect. Oh wait, it's a giant conspiracy of the RNC to make more money. You didn't have a good response so you accuse them of being drunk?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Was a bit quicker than typing the fact that socialist "do-gooders" utilize the power of the state to implement "feel-good" solutions for perceived problems under the guise of "charity". Unfortunately, it's other peoples' money they use for that "charity".
... snip

Suggest you look up and truly digest the meanings of the words, "capitalism, totalitarianism, and marxism". Then study some historical context: study the history of the October revolution, the expropriation of private property, the gulags, the WWII era, and the various actions of those marxist totalitarian states. Then spend some time reading and understanding the events that transpired on 9/11, the various teachings of the Taliban, Al Queda, and Iran's little re-incarnation of a certain German dictator. After you have educated yourself on the historical context of the various phrases you throw around with abandon in your post above, get back with us here and we can have a meaningful discussion. Until that point, any further conversation would be useless as you seem to want to throw out terms as invectives, giving those words whatever meaning you intend them to have.
... snip of more meaningless yapping.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep. But let's just make one more drug legal, and then one more....
That'll allow us to concentrate on outlawing the important stuff like French fries and preservatives....
What do you think, call off the war on drugs and concentrate on something winnable, like the war on poverty?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
These restrictions are not about doing anything about the drug problem. They are about looking like they are doing something about the drug problem. Actually doing something would be far more difficult and relatively few people would know about it as it does not effect the majority. If they put restrictions on products, it will do little to nothing about the problem but it will appear they are working hard at it. Appearances are everything.
wrote:

That
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In a similar vein, this sounds just like the security measures taken at airports by the TSA. Take your shoes off. No bottles of water (from home.) I feel safer already.
Therefore I must surmise that real action must be difficult and the results may go unnoticed by the majority.
What is so difficult about law enforcement & security?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 06:30:08 GMT, Lew Hodgett

OK, Lew - call me dumb but I don't get it.
Missing What?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe Bemier wrote:

Think about it.
How about the continued stupidity of government to fail to recognize a failed policy and change it?
How about a $35 billion piece of the gross national product that operates as part of the under ground economy?
Lew
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And therefore isn't taxed... which is the best argument I can think of for abolishing the income tax, and replacing it with a sales tax: it's the only way there is, to tax illegally earned income. Sure, there might be one or two drug dealers or marijuana growers who report that income on their 1040s, but obviously most of them don't. The money does them no good unless they spend it, though. So tax it when they spend it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's an easy solution to that problem: if a shrink says that Jack Felon is rehabilitated and should be released, release Jack into the shrink's custody, to rent a room in the shrink's house for six months or a year.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I don't think that is fair. It is highly unlikely that enough shrinks would cooperate with your suggestion. Your idea is a wash. You also assume that there would be a room for rent. We don't know that. Cite your source please.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

Exactly. Shrinks can sign off that someone is cured or rehabilitated without a care in the world. If the shrinks had to do more than file the paperwork afterwards I'm betting that the number of child molestors and rapists that were cured would be reduced.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the shrinks won't cooperate, I think it's legitimate to wonder why... If the guy is truly rehabilitated, there's nothing to fear from him, right?
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

This, of course, would only apply to shrinks who run Bed & Breakfast establishments. Then again, maybe the fear isn't about physical harm, but the smell of the rehabilitated armpits? Maybe the shrink has a dog that doesn't like strangers? Aside from 'lack-of-fear', I can think of many reasons why a shrink wouldn't want any guests. The whole idea is silly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.