On April 24 2011 03:35 Coraz wrote: we'd win the war on drugs if the governmnet could macro better
Absolutely, and that is not just a clever word play. You can see the micro skills in the news and Cops' shows, they got some very well orchestrated timing pushes and game sense. In the macro sense though, they seem to be limited - they never quite manage to keep their contain or have their push reach the enemy production buildings, the raw horsepower isnt there.
I mean can you even imagine if someone one got life in prison for messing with a harmless piece of grass? I don't care if you've processed and sold 5 tons of hashish in the last month, people that agree to this are sick in the head. =s
On April 24 2011 03:35 Coraz wrote: we'd win the war on drugs if the governmnet could macro better
Absolutely, and that is not just a clever word play. You can see the micro skills in the news and Cops' shows, they got some very well orchestrated timing pushes and game sense. In the macro sense though, they seem to be limited - they never quite manage to keep their contain or have their push reach the enemy production buildings, the raw horsepower isnt there.
They split up their army, fight on too many fronts, try to harass without protecting their main, and fake tech so much that no one with game sense believes what the government is showing them. Fancy Play Syndrome, IMO.
Problem: Drug dealers not making enough money Solution: Make drugs illegal, profits skyrocket
Problem: Slave labor not as accessible as it use to be Solution: Private jails and life sentences for drug users, bus them to a factory across the street to work for 2 bucks a day
Problem: CIA plane crashes coming in to the US with 3.2 tonnes of pure cocane Solution: do nothing.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cia+plane+with+drugs+crashes
On April 26 2011 04:13 jinorazi wrote: i'm surprised by the 44-2 vote more than anything. how the hell with people with no common sense allowed to vote on such matters?
-christians -republican ronald reagan fanboys -grew up surrounded by ridiculous government sponsored anti-drug propaganda from the 70s -group think/peer pressure to vote certain way (certainly no politician wants to be seen as the guy who is pro weed smoking. They're voting for their own job security. I bet there's lots more who would have opposed if it didn't put them on the spot.) -being funded to vote a certain way. -derp all drugs are bad, it's a black and white issue and it's all in the black. derp
just speculation
On April 26 2011 04:05 PlosionCornu wrote: I don't actually care since I don't smoke pot, or tobacco for that matter.
I'm not some kind of narrow minded purist, I'm just poor and weed is costly, so I avoid it.
I don't smoke tobacco but I am very opposed to a lot of the crazy anti-smoking regulations. I haven't smoked herb for more than 6 years but still care about how it affects my fellow bros/citizens.
Gotta look at the big picture guy. This isn't about smoking. It's about something much larger. It will affect you sooner or later. Only a matter of time if this kind of activity is allowed to fester.
Wow that is an outrage what the hell is going on in o.k??While all the other states are actually opening their eyes and finally allowing medical marijuana they go and do something like that??Just sounds like a way to make money off of people who are just trying to kick back and relax.
If a state did something like this but about making alcohol or their own cigs they would freak out about a penalty so harsh 2 to life?!?! What the hell?! Moon shine makers get off with a lesser sentence.All i can say is glad i dont live in o.k... i feel sorry for anyone who does.
On April 26 2011 06:34 Skoe420 wrote: Wow that is an outrage what the hell is going on in o.k??While all the other states are actually opening their eyes and finally allowing medical marijuana they go and do something like that??Just sounds like a way to make money off of people who are just trying to kick back and relax.
If a state did something like this but about making alcohol or their own cigs they would freak out about a penalty so harsh 2 to life?!?! What the hell?! Moon shine makers get off with a lesser sentence.All i can say is glad i dont live in o.k... i feel sorry for anyone who does.
I agree. I feel sorry for people who have to be surrounded by
I live in Texas and we actually get some of Oklahoma's crazyness. Thank god I live in a big city..
On April 26 2011 05:17 Warlike Prince wrote: Working as intended
Problem: Drug dealers not making enough money Solution: Make drugs illegal, profits skyrocket
Problem: Slave labor not as accessible as it use to be Solution: Private jails and life sentences for drug users, bus them to a factory across the street to work for 2 bucks a day
Problem: CIA plane crashes coming in to the US with 3.2 tonnes of pure cocane Solution: do nothing.http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cia+plane+with+drugs+crashes
How the war on drugs scam works <alex jones video>
I'm sorry but Alex Jones is a moron, don't take anything that he says seriously.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
because it's only legal trough government sanctioned shops and no, it's not cheaper to buy from a dealer, because it's much more expensive to smuggle shit. the netherlands showed how it's done. end of the story.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
because it's only legal trough government sanctioned shops and no, it's not cheaper to buy from a dealer, because it's much more expensive to smuggle shit. the netherlands showed how it's done. end of the story.
Its legal to purchase but not to own. Plus depending on the location home grown is more common then smuggled in.
p.s if its anything like Liquor here in Canada. (taxed obscene amounts) The business model for selling the drug on the street will still be good. Grow -ops will still remain illegal as well as the sale of it. Though consumption wont be; a lot of people would purchase form a seller on the street for it to be more cost effective plus be higher quality.
If one gram of xxxx costs 15 bucks in a shop, or more why not spend 10 bucks on some dealer for some xxxx.
On April 24 2011 09:42 Offhand wrote: The whole drug debate needs to framed as hating Mexicans who profit from drugs instead of focusing on the fact that weed isn't actually bad for you, as it's quite obvious that no one cares. I'm confident if CA changed the dialogue from "weed is safe" to "weed gives money to brown people" pot would be legal in a week.
Until then it's up to the NE states to be all reasonable and beat CA to recreational laws.
yes tell me how those mexicans are doing with all those profits they are getting from this.
The few cartel head boss dudes are among the richest men in the world. Their underlings die often, but if you've ever seen police raids of the actually big guys, I remember one of them had a classic gun collection larger than that of museums.
the entire nation of mexico is gripped in a bloody civil war. Normal everyday people are being kidnapped and the cartels gangs are robbing hospitals and schools. you can hire a hit for only $20 and you think that the fact that a few are richer then the rest (not even close to the american super rich) make your argument even remotely good?
Edit: And guess where pot is legal?
The intensity of your idiocy is vomit inducing.
Same to thorakh. You're basically insisting that everyone hold the same values as you. You might as well be hitler.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
because it's only legal trough government sanctioned shops and no, it's not cheaper to buy from a dealer, because it's much more expensive to smuggle shit. the netherlands showed how it's done. end of the story.
Its legal to purchase but not to own. Plus depending on the location home grown is more common then smuggled in.
p.s if its anything like Liquor here in Canada. (taxed obscene amounts) The business model for selling the drug on the street will still be good. Grow -ops will still remain illegal as well as the sale of it. Though consumption wont be; a lot of people would purchase form a seller on the street for it to be more cost effective plus be higher quality.
If one gram of xxxx costs 15 bucks in a shop, or more why not spend 10 bucks on some dealer for some xxxx.
I believe that if they actually base the price on how much i costs to produce, then tax that, the price will still be significantly lower than any black market price will be. The only reason bud is expensive at all is simply the risk involved. It jacks the prices up and the only ones who cash in are those who put themselves at risk. If the price drops down to a reasonable taxed level, they can't undersell the regulated sellers.
High maximum sentences are primarily to help scare criminal defendants into accepting plea bargains. It would probably take extraordinary circumstances for it to ever be imposed.
That's not to say I agree with it, but the real issue is about giving prosecutors leverage in plea bargain negotiations.
On April 24 2011 03:28 A3iL3r0n wrote: I predict that the first state to fully embrace marijuana, i.e. developing laws for its sale and control, will receive a large economic boost. I'm from Minnesota and we have a large agricultural research university (U of M). I don't see why we haven't legalized the retailing of pot, with some additional laws barring minors from purchasing or consuming it, driving under the influence, etc, and then tax the shit out of it. This would also have the effect of reducing revenue to street gangs who sell weed to fund their other gang activities. The hard drugs market, as far as I know, has a much much smaller user base.
If you tax the shit of it, whats to stop from those gang bangers to sell more product to people who wanna buy it with ought all the taxation. Since its legal it doesn't matter where you procure it from.
I would still buy of some random dealer I know then a store because its cheaper. Plus its legal after the purchase you don't know where i got it from.
In Cali and Colorado pot is essentially legal at this point, so you get your doctors reference, and there are licensed, taxed retailers from which you can buy. Even when taxed heavily, the price is about the same as it is from your local pot-selling hippie ($40-50/eighth, about half that if you give them your grow rights) and when you find a good dispensary, you're assured that: 1) what you're smoking is quality, 2) your pot dealer will never be dry, and 3) there will be new edible creations for you to sample. The price will be about equal considering that pot currently has an "illegality tax," that is, dealers charge a premium to compensate for the risks they're taking. It wouldn't matter where you procured it, but in most circumstances, you'd probably want to buy from the store anyway.
On April 26 2011 06:34 Skoe420 wrote: Wow that is an outrage what the hell is going on in o.k??While all the other states are actually opening their eyes and finally allowing medical marijuana they go and do something like that??Just sounds like a way to make money off of people who are just trying to kick back and relax.
If a state did something like this but about making alcohol or their own cigs they would freak out about a penalty so harsh 2 to life?!?! What the hell?! Moon shine makers get off with a lesser sentence.All i can say is glad i dont live in o.k... i feel sorry for anyone who does.
I agree. I feel sorry for people who have to be surrounded by + Show Spoiler +
I live in Texas and we actually get some of Oklahoma's crazyness. Thank god I live in a big city..
Please don't throw us all in the same category. I could find crazy pictures of Texans, but I know they are rare, and not very common.
OT: I have no idea what they were thinking here, LIFE? Really?
This is the first I heard of this, and I live in Oklahoma....
Im glad I dont live in Oklahoma. I dont understand the motive for this though. WTF has hash done to that city that would make them put this on their list of priorities?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.waltsense.com/storage/articles/20090619_redneck-toilet.jpg)
