Vermont’s Senate candidate demonstrates why marijuana shouldn’t be legalized

by editor on October 26, 2010

This may look and sound like a Saturday Night Live skit, but it’s for real. This is Chris Erickson, candidate for the U.S. Senate representing Vermont’s Marijuana Party.

Seriously. Vermont has a Marijuana Party, which goes a long way toward explaining the phrase “Vermont Governor Howard Dean.”

The only way this commercial could be better is if the candidate’s name had been Mary Jane.

H/T: Breitbart.tv

Leave a Reply

58 Comments on "Vermont’s Senate candidate demonstrates why marijuana shouldn’t be legalized"

Notify of
CRIS ERICSON
Guest

When I arrived at WNYT, Albany, New York, I checked my hair and makeup in the ladies room, then a young man lead me down a long hallway and through a door and down another hallway and possibly through a curtain or other obstruction to get past alleged cables and equipment on the floor to a dark room where the young man demanded I sit upon a high rickety stool with a perilous cloth seat.

Also, my cat died that day. I make no other apologies for my appearance and fear of sitting up too high on a rickety stool.

The young camera man was dreadful.

Please go to my new blog:
http://crisericson2012.blogspot.com

I AM RUNNING AGAIN IN 2012 FOR U.S. SENATE AND GOVERNOR.
ELECTIONS IN VERMONT ARE EVERY TWO YEARS.

THE BLOG CONTAINS INFORMATION FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE AND THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE ON PATENTS ON SEEDS AND MARIJUANA.

CRIS ERICSON http://USMJP.com
UNITED STATES MARIJUANA PARTY

Querdenker
Guest

Legalise it, if only to remove one of the left’s strongest marketing tools to monopoliuse youth culture.

They have been promising the kids legalisation for many years, whilst pushing the music and drug culture.

What self respecting kid would be a conservative?

Legalise the weed, and the right will once again be able to have access to the young people — it’s easier to teach them the right things at 14 than picking up the pieces of a disillusioned middle-aged ex-leftie who finally finds out that actually, they have been conservatives all along (and then lose all their lefty friends who end up shunning them).

As to the original post: pls. giz a break. I can show you plenty of freaks in office who don’t even need drugs to come over as complete weirdos. Leave the banning of things to the left, they make the better dictators.

JustAl
Member

A parting thought on a thought provoking thread.

A couple of folks here seem to think that any law is a good law and that anyone who wants to repeal one wants to repeal them all. Some folks seem to think that it’s a great idea for the government to allow citizens only the freedom that they “need”. In many cases people insist on interjecting analogies that don’t remotely have anything to do with the subject. So I thought I’d play along.

So here’s an idea that might appeal to some. Since all laws are good laws and nobody “needs” the freedom to do more than the government dictates, let’s put sensors on all accelerators and equip all speed limit signs with transmitters so that no driver could ever, under any circumstances, exceed the speed limit. The technology is doable, no more need for speed traps, lay off a third of the city cops and no one ever gets another speeding ticket.

Come on folks, let’s hear it, is the freedom to use your car as you like more important than the freedom to use your body as you like?

sa_rose
Member

I have actually always wondered why, if the speed limit is 70 (which it was when I first started considering this) why make a car that can reach speeds of 130-150. It is senseless. I don’t want a law, or anything, I’ve just always wondered.

perlcat
Member

The short answer is they can’t. I have tried to get cars to go all the way — but the upper limit on the speedometer is apparently just wishful thinking that sells cars. Like all fishing lies, they try to be somewhat believable — otherwise, car makers would be having the upper limit as fractions of the speed of light.

It is the same logic that gets you a gas gauge that allows you to burn half the gas in your tank and be on 3/4 — people get fooled. It is like I say about fishing lures — they don’t have to actually catch fish. They just have to catch fishermen in the store.

SCDiver
Member

Rev limiters are why cars fresh off the lot won’t hit the upper end of the speedo. That’s what aftermarket chips are for, if you want to pay 200-300 dollars to remove that upper limit 🙂

The upper limit on the rev limiter varies by car too. A corvette has a higher limit than a sedan.

Just throwing that out there 🙂

SCDiver
Member

Street-legal night at the race track! Woohoooo!!!!

MichiganVet
Member

Calm down Al – no one said “all laws are good ones”. You are taking this far too serious — I respect your right of your opinion and wish you could respect mine.

I spent 13 months in Viet Nam and had two incidents with stoners who could not stand guard (and fell asleep) almost got 5 of us killed. Try to understand that instances like that leave an impression on you.

JustAl
Member

MVet,
I’m sorry, but for the last 40 years I’ve watch the government grow, and grow, and grow, I’m a few years younger than you but even I can remember when the punch line in cartoons was, “don’t make it a federal case,” now, everything is.

I wouldn’t blame you for simply killing someone in that situation, and I mean it, I’ve had similar talks with my son. But is that a reason to confiscate the property of a family because their kid has an oz or two on him? I’ve seen it happen to people I work with. I don’t think anyone is in favor of allowing people to work in dangerous positions while using any intoxicant. It’s been years since I smoked it. Some of the guys I smoked with no doubt became bums, but quiet a few became very good scientists, engineers, managers, and entrepreneurs, a couple became preachers. In fact the only two high school classmates I have who went to prison were two of the ones who never tried it.

My son is in the guard, training up for Afghanistan, when he went to Iraq a few years ago it took him a month running around the state to gather up enough equipment for a single company to deploy. When they got to the train up base they had 5 working rifles for 100 troops. As a team lead he had a grenade launcher. . . but no grenades. Yet we spend billions of dollars chasing people down for smoking pot. Never mind the mission, the ROE and C&C on this gig coming up.

I have a lot of customers just across the border, they are scared shitless to go to work, most of them know someone personally who has been killed, kidnapped, or extorted in the last couple of years. The cartel enforcers are all spec ops guys from South America, that we trained with our war on drugs money. This stuff doesn’t get reported much north of San Antonio, I’m talking belt fed weapons and rpgs being popped in the streets within 2 miles of the US. If it stays illegal the profits stay high and plenty of people will kill for it. You don’t see that happening with booze since prohibition was repealed, and a bottle of Jack would have rendered your sentries just as useless.

The politicans say we can’t afford to round up all the illegals but we can spend billions trying to keep someone from smoking a joint in his bedroom, whether he pays taxes or not. Of course, once we catch him, he’ll never work or pay taxes again, by God, we’ll see to that.

Believe me, my anger is not directed at you, it is directed at what we’ve let this country become, at the stereotypes the leftist media plays out to build support for the police state. I go to TEA meetings thinking finally, finally, we can get back to the Constitution, and then somebody gets up spouting about the goal of putting god and religion back in government, and enforcing the insane war on drugs. I’m ready for people to stop trying to enforce their way of life on others at the point of a gun, that goes for the marxists, the prohibitonists, and the bible thumpers.

We have literally swallowed the camel as we gagged on the gnat. Regan promised more police, then gave the illegals amnesty. Bush and Gore tried to outpromise each other on drugs to retirees. We’ve gone from “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death” to “Vote for me and I’ll give you free drugs, but send the black kid down the block to prison for his.” And the AMA kills more Americans in a year, by their own admission , than died in the entire Vietnam war.

It’s hard to calm down when my kids and now my grand kids are enslaved to a debt they can never pay in a country that will never be as free as the one I grew up in. My time is running out to try to do something about it.

The enemy isn’t even hiding anymore. You and your comrades risked everything and close to a quarter of a million gave everything in the 20th century to fight socialism in Europe and Asia, and now we have a died in the wool socialist with his feet up on the desk in the oval office. Yes, sir, I’m a little worked up.

I respect your opinion, but after 70 years of various levels of prohibition, why can’t someone else’s opinion be tried? All it’s done is feed a government that wants nothing but more power and more money.

It isn’t just about the drugs, but it is a lynch pin, once we ceded unConstitutional power to the government on drugs it wasn’t much of a step to health care, or CO2, or salt all of which they now want to control. We can’t just slow the growth, we have got to push this lard assed Genie back into the bottle. And I’m not ready to compromise on any part front in doing it.

That, and I’d rather bullshit with you guys about politics than do my paperwork here in the office 😉

Good night from Texas,

perlcat
Member

Yep, where I work, if you are stoned, people will die. Then again, if you’re drunk, people will die. It is a very compelling reason to not indulge on the clock. THC being what it is, and peeing in a cup being what it is, few people smoke it, and the ones that do are unemployed pretty damned fast, and we’re not sad to see them go.

I see this as one more thing that you just have to find a way to deal with. In some occupations, (like where someone I know works for NPR), nobody cares if you’re stoned, as the quality of work isn’t a factor.

Necron_99
Member

Exactly.

KimmyQueen
Guest

So…. she got no budget to get a stylist…? she got no friends? no mirrors? She was also weirdly hyppie… (hyperactive)…. eww… she reminded me of a male 80’s rocker gone to seed.

YT
Member

Speaking of MJ:

If your state hasn’t caught on yet…that synthetic THC sprayed on oregano (or some other fragrent herb) sold as “K2” or “Chill Spice” works great. Pretty good buz…not illegal and does not have chemical signature drug tests are looking for.

If you wife and/or kids are a pain in the ass, pick some up today (if legal in your state).

This has been my good deed of the week.

JustAl
Member

I don’t keep up on the technology of such things. But since the GCMS is used to detect cannabinoids, I have to believe that even “synthetic” THC would be detectable, and also be illegal.Speaking as a former chemist, even as someone who isn’t religious, if I had to choose between something God made and something a chemist made. . . I know which way I’d go.

But the real issue here is about limiting the government. Let’s do that first before celebrating in what ever fashion.

YT
Member

Its not technically THC…some other chemical that has the same effect on the body. Chemistry was never my best subject. Details on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_cannabis

USN-RETIRED
Member

.
“that synthetic THC sprayed on oregano”

Only if you put it on pizza. Smoking oregano really tears up the throat ( or so I’ve been told – wink, wink)

sa_rose
Member

In my city they are already prohibiting the sale of K2. Nice try.

JustAl
Member

I read yesterday on Drudge that Soros is talking openly about legalization. This is obviously a trap he is laying, waiting for the right to jump in with both feet. Had he really wanted legalization all he had to do was pull a string and His “O”lliness would have jumped, the back and forth in the early days about enforcing in CA was their way of testing the waters.

Obviously, I think the right should beat them to the punch and take it off the table, but failing that, I strongly advise against a strong negative response to his trial balloon. The trial layers who run the DNC are the last people on earth who would stop prohibition. But they will gladly lie to the youth vote about it until after the election on Tuesday.

perlcat
Member

Yep, they just want to get the right stirred up. Then they can demonize us. They have no real interest in legalizing it, and as said before, their trial lawyers would hate to lose such a lucrative business — but people do have a predictable reaction to legalization.

That Soros is just plain evil, and it is worth figuring out what he is trying to do, since that rat bastard kapo only wants what is worst for this country.

Kevin
Guest

I might consider voting for the United States Marijuana party, if my rent weren’t so damned high.

perlcat
Member

Just don’t depend upon pot smokers for tax revenue projections. That’s clearly one of those “here’s your sign” moments.

Therese Z
Guest

I do not get the whole push towards legalization, in one important respect: light up a cigarette now and you are Public Enemy Number Two, maybe. Legalize pot and they will light up without criticism? Will indoor smoking again be allowed? Heck, will outdoor smoking be allowed in certain “progressive” towns that have outlawed it on public property?

JustAl
Member

Therese,
I don’t think anyone is talking about special privileges vs tobacco, just the need to stop wasting money and giving criminal records to people who are doing pretty much the same thing as someone smoking a cigarette with a maragretta.

Too many people are too comfortable with giving the government the right to tell people what they can and can not do with their own body and money. Maybe they’re afraid they’ll become “stoners” without the police state to protect them from their weakness, maybe they actually believed “reefer madness”. It really is amazing that people can raise hell about limited government but be in favor of this kind of prohibition.

Maybe we could outlaw ragweed instead, that way the lawyers could still make money and the ragweed actually does cause a lot of problems. Opps, I guess the pharmacuetical companies would object to that one!

MichiganVet
Member

Some people, whether you agree or not, do not want marijuana legalized. Perhaps they see that making it legal may result in the same type of excess as alchoholics – people that have severe issues living amongst others. Perhaps people are concerned with people being high and driving or high and operating machinery.

Lets not forget that government “permits” alchohol and tobacco as sources of revenue – not because it’s healthy or in our best interest. These are the same idiots that require “warnings” on TV alchohol ads and cigarette packages. Makes no sense.

JustAl
Member

Obviously some people do, other people want to nationalize health care, retirement planning, and disarm citizens for exactly the same reasons you propose, to prevent “excess” by the poor people who can not run their own lives.

And the difference between what you advocate and socialism is what again?

I humbly point out that the government doesn’t “permit” shit, we permit the government to overstep so folks can rest all comfy in their snug blankets of self righteousness provided by the state.

Thanks for your service by the way.

MichiganVet
Member

So people cannot disagree with you? And you dont want government enforcing laws (like protecting our borders) or do you simply want to break the law because you dont agree with it?

There are always 2 sides to every issue and I am simply trying to point out that once you open the gate of legalizing drugs, the situation could be worse that it is today.

And I dont understand (maybe I’m too old) as to why people need drugs other than for medical purposes. What is it that they need? Can you you advocates please help educate me? (serious)
mv

JustAl
Member

Disagree with me? Re-read the first line, “Obviously some people do,” point out where I said they (you) couldn’t.Let me explain it a little more clearly, it isn’t about enforcing laws, it’s about repealing them, big difference there.

Protecting our borders? Sir, I live in Texas and do a lot of business in the Mexican border towns. In my opinion a mine field twelve miles deep would not be enough.

Please stay on the subject, this isn’t about protecting the border anymore than it is about child prostitution as the earlier poster interjected. This is about the right of adults to do what they will with their own bodies and money.

Yes, there are always two sides, in fact there are always way more than two sides, and yes, the situation could be worse, but it could also be better. We’ve tried your way for 70 years, why not give liberty a chance for a change?

The point is that you don’t need to understand, nor approve, of what other adult citizens do or “need”. Thank God the word “need” does not exist in the bill of rights. You sound like so many of the east coast “conservatives” I talk to, . . . “well, nobody “needs” a 30 round magazine, nobody “needs” a semi-auto. . . etc.When you decide to let the government determine what people “need,” how do you control it?

I don’t know if you take vitamins and supplements (hope you do, be sure to google the latest on vitamin D), but McCain himself wants the FDA to control that. What happens when they knock on the door and tell you that you no longer “need” that spare bedroom when there are illegal aliens living on the street?

To summarize the education you requested, and with respect. It is not up to me, nor you, and certainly not the federal government to determine nor provide what citizens “need”. If you think it should be up to the government then you have a lot in common with the folks who think the government should administer all healthcare and retirments.

Wasting billions of dollars fighting a “war” against a simple deciduous plant has not prevented rampant child pornography, child prostitution, open borders or excessive cowtipping. It is a completely separate issue and should be treated as such for the sake of clarity and accuracy.

You are either for personal liberty and the rights of the individual to make his own decisions and live with his own mistakes or you are against it. You can’t be a “little socialist” just like a woman can’t be “a little pregnant”

sa_rose
Member

I agree completely. I drink rarely, and then just 1-2 drinks. I don’t understand the point of drinking until you puke, pass out, or both. So I certainly do not understand smoking marijuana, which HAS been associated with escalating harder drug use. Whenever I hear of a drug arrest ( and in Texas they are plentiful!) it is never for small amounts of marijuana. It is either for huge, several ton amounts, or it is marijuana AND coke, AND weapons, AND large amounts of loose cash. I guess I am too old too.

JustAl
Member

True, if you make something illegal, it becomes associated with criminals. Yet another less on we learned the hard way and chose to ignore.

I’ve never actually heard of someone smoking marijuana until they puked. Interesting if true. For that matter, I’ve never heard of someone smoking marijuana and starting a bar fight either.

Go to the library and read about liquor arrests during prohibition, let us know if they also had large amounts of illegal substances, and weapons, and cash. Then think about how much violence is associated with the liquor trade today.

Take a look at my last post, personally, I think speeding is the “gateway crime”.

Thanks,

sa_rose
Member

Having spent the better part of my life not only in the Library, but talking to people who lived through that time, I can assure you there were additional illegal substances along with the alcohol, because they were SMUGGLERS! There is a great deal of violence associated with alcohol. And where I live, many of the drunks are also stoned. Even the ones that are not drunkl, only stoned, are so out of it from the marijuana that they couldn’t make a decision in less than 15 min if their lives depended on it, and if they did manage, it would be a stupid decision. I understand the arguement for legalizing marijuana. I do. But just as we now know that alcohol is deadly to the body, mind and society, even though prohibition was repealed, so now its legal to kill yourself and possible others along the way, and develop physical and mental disorders that you would never have had you not been drinking. I don’t think it is wise to add another, similar depressant drug to the available for abuse list.

JustAl
Member

Then be prepared when others think it isn’t wise to allow you to own a gun, or choose your own doctor, or eat dairy products. The nanny state, something only a mother could love.

perlcat
Member

Just because a government passes a law against an activity criminalizing it does not mean that the activity will stop. In fact, people being what they are, it increases the thrill they get from doing it, and for all too many engaged in the behavior, the thrill is even more attractive than the intoxicant itself. With all the past history showing the non-success of criminalization, a different tactic needs to be used.

Passing a law against something does no good if it is not enforced, results in the behavior increasing, or side effects make the situation worse. A normal politician would, rather than take an honest look at the effects of the law, would then say that the answer is not enough legislation and control over our lives. In fact, that is a perfect description of how our government is currently working, and I see all three negative outcomes from our current legislation.

I have never heard a career politician say there are enough laws, and I have never heard an insurance salesman tell me I have enough insurance.

If we want to control/reduce/eliminate this behavior, we have to figure out what actually works, and then do it. I believe that the only way to do that is to look at different ways to do it. First and foremost is to get the federal government out of it — they have no standing in the matter, thanks to the 10th Amendment. Second would be to let the various states pass the laws as they see fit — some stricter, some less strict. Something will work. Some states will become a mecca for stoners — and others will see them move out. We’ll see who has the right ideas when their state’s economy either prospers/suffers because of their legislation.

I heartily agree that our alcohol legislation leaves a lot to be desired — but if outlawed, the behavior only gets worse. So far, the only behavioral modification laws related to intoxicants that have any degree of success are tobacco taxation laws. Even the FDA has problems — in a lot of ways, they perpetrate a monopoly on us, keeping our medicines ridiculously high and unavailable.

perlcat
Member

I guess in a more direct answer to your last phrase, it wasn’t up to such as you and I to add this to the list — it is already on the ‘available for abuse’ list societally speaking — I just want it brought under control.

perlcat
Member

To be entirely blunt, I don’t really care if a particular state chooses to outlaw pot. It is their right. I object to a federal government overstepping their bounds. Take opiates, for example — in the context of a hospice situation, we all consider making them available to be an act of mercy. This does not mean that everybody should get ’em some. It just means that there are contexts where allowing it is the moral and appropriate (and often the only) thing to do.

If you dislike your state’s laws, you are free to campaign to change them. However, from what I see with federal laws, there is no effort whatsoever to actually deal with the problem — all the arrests and such make for great drama, but do little to nothing to actually stop it. In fact, since the procurement industry is highly risky, it adds an enormous profit into the mix, generating enormous potential for crime, exactly as happened during Prohibition.

Finally, there is also no room for compassion in our federal strategy — if pot helps someone going through the misery of chemo, why not?

YT
Member

Perhaps those people need to smoke a bowl and like chill out dude.

perlcat
Member

I do find it highly amusing that the same libs who drove the demonization of tobacco would be the same people taking advantage of legalized mj. It would drive more divisions in the democrat party and the mud slinging between lib factions would be epic.

JustAl
Member

Not to mention the lost contributions from the trial lawyers, who, along with the cartels would be the big monetary losers from legalization.

YT
Member

The libs will start to hate it once an entity organized as a C corporation begins to crank out joints at 1/10th the cost and twice the quality as the hoodlum down the street. Or starts to sell grown your own kits at home depot.

To them its all about the fact that an “evil corporation, man” is doing it.

RKae
Member

Nothing is ever legalized and then stays in the shadows. Once legalized, it will be a part of the culture – out front, in everyone’s face, all over the tube, marketed and pushed in every possible way.

If you throw up your hands every time crimefighting proves difficult, I shudder to think how you’ll fold when you find out how prevalent child prostitution and child porn are and how much money it all makes. If you truly knew the numbers you’d surely shrug and say, “Well, I guess it’s normal. Legalize it and tax it.” And don’t give me the ol’ “apples and oranges” argument because “child prostitution has real victims.” All you need to do is rationalize it with a change in culture and attitude. And pot-smokers are masters of rationalization.

Legalizing pot will do nothing for the violence in Mexico. Why is the violence worse than ever? Why did it escalate? Meth. Legalization of pot will not curtail crime in America either. The criminals will just sell more meth. Are we legalizing meth? What about the not-yet-invented drugs to come in the future? How will you deal with those?

Criminals love the life of violence and intimidation that crime gives them. They will always be there amongst us living that life and we should always fight them.

JustAl
Member

First, who cares?

Next, it isn’t “crimefighting” it’s morals enfocement. And the issue isn’t that it’s “difficult” the issue is that it is statist and runs against everything the Constitution stands for.

Next, a typical leftist argument, let’s change the subject to something like child porn because logic isn’t going to win for the prohibitonists. How remanecent of the leftists cry that schools, the military and law enforcement were already “socialized” as I fought them on health care. Leave the straw men to the left, they’re frankly better at it. No one but you is talking about child porn and prostitution (there must be some pretty dark corners in RKae’s mind). The adults here are talking about indivdual liberty to use one’s own body. Buy a clue.

Yes, the Mexicans will spend tons of money on weapons to protect. . . what exactly? In case you haven’t figured it out meth is a local problem, not an imported one, people make it in suburban bath tubs. So let’s just keep funnelling billions of dollars toward marijuana and make sure that anyone who wants to try it has to deal with criminals, good plan, it worked so well the first time prohibition was tried.

Freedom loving men love the Constitution, which, despite the fact that drugs, prostitution, abortion, gambling, and cowtipping all existed at the time, the framers in their wisdom did not include as part of the federal mandate.

Lawyers and the self righteous love to use the government to criminalize others, which are you?

perlcat
Member

Look — when gambling was only legal in Vegas, the world didn’t come to an end. People with a gambling problem went to Vegas, blew their bus fare back home, and there they stayed, and found work. People that didn’t have a gambling problem but thought gambling was OK went to Vegas, put a few dollars into the slots, had a good time, and came back. People that didn’t gamble stayed at home.

It’s a free country, until the statists eliminate all our freedoms. This is a perfect example of how they do it — by allowing constitutional violations for supposed “good” things to happen. This violation of the constitution sits in the argument like a gas station burrito, justifying further encroachments upon our liberties.

If you want the feds to enforce drug laws, then you need to push for a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, you are contributing to the destruction of our nation via the evisceration of the Constitution. If your reply is “but the 19th amendment didn’t work out so good, causing more alcohol and crime problems than it stopped”, then I will reply to you, “My point, exactly.”

When law enforcement is local, and certain localities allow x behavior, and others don’t, we have a chance at seeing what actually works, and can replicate that across the country. I defy you to prove that the federal government in their top-down, unconstitutional approach to fighting drug crime has eliminated drugs as a problem.

On the other hand, local overtaxation and enforcement of tobacco laws has reduced what was a commonplace activity into something that may actually go away due to disuse. Tell me what is better — fighting a problem, making it a thousand times worse and getting great “feel-good” press, or dealing with the problem in the most effective proven method and making it go away?

You added other heinous crimes to this discussion — I disbelieve that smoking pot has a causal relation to those problems — most people I know that smoke pot have trouble getting anything done, and are essentially harmless, except to themselves (as long as they don’t drive or operate heavy machinery). However, most people that violate laws really aren’t stopped by more laws, and a feckless federal government enforcing laws as poorly as ours does actually encourages such behavior by adding to the romance of it without adding to the risks in a real sense.

JustAl
Member

So, those in favor of prohbition want to spend my tax dollars to protect these people from their own bad habits?

Legalize it, tax it, forget it.

Remember the violence of the first prohibiton? Checked out the Mexican border lately? Stuck on stupid, aka war on drugs.

perlcat
Member

Yeah, I know. I figure that if enough democrats were smoking AmbitionBeGone, then a *lot* of our government problems would just go away. They’d be happy, and we’d be happy.

Maybe I’m just talking out my ***, but I figure that if it were legalized, then we could tax the hell out of it like they do with tobacco. The federal government needs to get out of the illegal drug law business, and go back to doing the things it is supposed to do. This whole war on drugs bit has been a self-justifying increase of government and has been an abject failure. If a state feels it ought to be illegal, then the state needs to pass & enforce laws.

This does not mean that I *like* these drugs — I figure that only idiots would take them, but then, only idiots would do a lot of other things, too.

JustAl
Member

Even if only a fraction gets taxed we would be ahead by not spending wads fighting it.

Right now the cartels make tons of money and the only others who profit are lawyers (who then send wads of money to the DNC).

Meanwhile, if a kid experiments we give him a record and take everything from his parents. This is one of the issues that drives the young to the left. If we simply stuck to exactly what the Constitution says the federal government should do the budget would be balanced and the socialists wouldn’t have a prayer.

YT
Member

The prison guard and police unions profit as well. Also, who knows what percentage of the DEA’s budget depends on it. Who knows how many of them would be out of work and we could hear all the sob stories from the media outlets on the other side of the political spectrum from the pol. that did it.

Thats why we are so screwed…the economy has been structurally messed with so long that any attempt to fix anything will have major consequences for some specific group.

Also….not a dime of tax will be raised by pot sale. Its a weed…it grows anywhere. Walk around any college campus and you’ll see baby plants growing from where the kids dump out the seeds in from their bag of $15 crap weed.

perlcat
Member

I actually figure that the gov’t will *lose* money if a legalization/taxation system is implemented — right now they enjoy seizing property without getting challenged on violating the “takings” clause.

The fed is actually such an integral part of the problem — who knows how much hush money gets passed up to politicians, and how often they get used to legally eliminate drug dealers competitors. Any time you get morality laws passed, government corruption is hot on its heels.

YT
Member

I don’t think there is any NET benefit. For every million dollar king pin that gets busted and his 1983 cutlas with 22″ rims sold, there’s many small time dealers thrown in jail with a cost of over 100K per year (depending on the state) to feed and guard.But it keeps the law enforcement machine going. Just remember: If you’re a gov’t manager the only way to measure success is how big your department is and how good you are at keeping your budget.Gov’t doesn’t pass out incentives to cut expenses.

My experience in Defense is like this: If you hand a task manager back some money at the end of the year..even if all work is executed… you may as well hand him/her a turd on a plate.

perlcat
Member

all too true. This is why federalism works — it is the only known way to introduce a form of competition into government. Precisely why statists, libs, and socialists hate it so much.

redabogado
Member

Can we say, she is “off the hook!!”. The only thing missing is that familiar Howard Dean scream, “eeeeaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!!!!”.

SCDiver
Member

LOL! I like Dave Chappelle’s version of the scream better 😉

Bat doo-doo
Guest

Oh dear, what is that…. male, female or some weed induced combination? And what is the grey color about, fresh back from a zombie walk?

Now you Americans have socialised health care you can get to generously spend your tax dollars supporting the lifestyle of these pot-heads as they toke their brains to mush…. it’s a privilege we have long enjoyed in Australia.

MichiganVet
Member

It looks/sounds like George Soros in a blonde wig, wearing Nancy Pelosi’s pearls and reading a message from Obama’s teleprompter.
mv

p.s. This ad saved or created 2 jobs!

perlcat
Member

Your ad may have saved or created 2 jobs, but it lost me my lunch.

USN-RETIRED
Member

.
Have you sent out a search party? 😉

USN-RETIRED
Member

.

Dunno. Looks like she took one too many hits of Pelosi’s Botox.

Smirk
Member

That “Hemp Wig” is the next big thing… if she can get in, you’ll be seeing a lot more of these things!!

wpDiscuz