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.
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.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:23:18 GMT, email@example.com 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,
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
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
Mark & Juanita wrote:
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.
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
I like your academic adjectives and terms: "montrous bullshit." That's
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
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".
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
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
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.
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
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.
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.
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.
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.