Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 188

Thread: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That's why I don't support "The War on Drugs", keep going....
    You support the continued criminalization of drug possession and drug use. Don't insult us by pretending that it's not support of the war on drugs.

    No. We're not on the same page. You support continued criminalization of arbitrary substances based on distorted perceptions of your own authority and the impact of the use of those substances on you personally. The implementation of that desire is called the War on Drugs whether you like that fact or not.

    I support decriminalizing all drugs, and ending taxpayer subsidies for the incarceration and treatment of people stupid enough to do drugs and thereby mess up their lives. It was their body, it's their choice, it's their life, let them die when the confluence of trouble causes that to happen, without once violating the freedom others have to ignore them completely.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 07-17-09 at 07:06 PM.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You support the continued criminalization of drug possession and drug use.
    That doesn't mean I support "The War on Drugs"

  3. #123
    Sage
    Gibberish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Last Seen
    12-23-12 @ 09:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,339

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You support the continued criminalization of drug possession and drug use. Don't insult us by pretending that it's not support of the war on drugs.
    Supporting the prosecution of someone found breaking a law doesn't equate to supporting programs that actively seek those that may or may not be breaking said law.

    To the topic though, I fully support the legalization of Marijuana. It will all be worth the tax revenue generated and thousands of jobs created through the sale of marijuana. I also believe, as pointed out earlier in the thread, we will see a dilution of the strength in marijuana soon after legalization due to federal standards and the thousands of different home grown versions.
    Last edited by Gibberish; 07-17-09 at 07:35 PM.
    "Gold gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or someplace. Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head."
    - Warren Buffett

  4. #124
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Cite the Constitutional clause.
    Article 1 section 8. "To provide for the defense and general welfare..."

    Amendment X

    Murder violates the right of another to live. Protection of the innocent is the primary reason people create governments.

    Abortion is murder.

    Jay walking is illegal because the damn fool doing it can cause accidents and thereby harm others.

    Notice they don't outlaw walking, only walking while under the influence of Jay.
    right but NONE of these are explicit. They are DERIVED from the constitution. That's my point. Likewise drug control is derived as well.

    Drug use in and of itself does not harm others, only the user.

    Operating a motor vehicle under the influence, that's against the law because the damn fool can harm others.
    There is direct harm (murder, assault) and potential harm (drunk driving). Some consider drugs potential harm.

    I'm not saying I agree but can you comprehend that? Do you understand the difference between potential harm and direct harm? Do you understand that drunk driving is potential harm? Can you understand that some believe epidemic drug addiction or drug use is potential harm to the general welfare of the nation?

    Sure, that's true. The Constitution exists solely to grant politicians blank checks to do whatever they feel like doing at anytime.
    that's why there are checks and balances bucko.

    Wrong.

    What the federal government cannot do is things it's not explicitly authorized to do.
    providing for the defense and general welfare is pretty damn openended don't you think? Isn't it possible that protecting the health of citizens be considered "providing for the general welfare"?

    Also you should look up something called "strict scrutiny".

    Speaking of Amendments, go back and read numbers Nine and Ten.

    Then cite the Amendment that authorized the FDA. (Hint: it doesn't exist, the Amendment, not the FDA)
    we aren't discussing the FDA nor am I familiar with it enough to defend its creation. Does that somehow prove your point either way? No it doesn't. So stay on topic.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #125
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    right but NONE of these are explicit. They are DERIVED from the constitution. That's my point. Likewise drug control is derived as well.
    Why was an amendment needed to ban alcohol but not drugs?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Article 1 section 8. "To provide for the defense and general welfare..."
    and the following list of specifically enumerated powers is ALL that congress was allowed to do.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Amendment X

    right but NONE of these are explicit. They are DERIVED from the constitution. That's my point. Likewise drug control is derived as well.
    Well, that's weird.

    What the Tenth Amendment really says is that if it's not SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY allowed to the Federal government in the Constitution, that it's SPECIFICALLY and EXPLICITLY NOT allowed.

    How you manage to get the opposite meaning is not a good reflection on your training.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    There is direct harm (murder, assault) and potential harm (drunk driving). Some consider drugs potential harm.
    Ah.

    Well, you see...drunk driving is outlawed, not alcohol.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    providing for the defense and general welfare is pretty damn openended don't you think?
    Not once a person learns how to read, no.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Isn't it possible that protecting the health of citizens be considered "providing for the general welfare"?
    Since that wasn't a power given to the Congress, no, it's not.

    The Constitution is not a blank check.

    Get over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Also you should look up something called "strict scrutiny".
    Is that something like "learning how to read basic english"?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    we aren't discussing the FDA
    Where do you think the line of descent for drug interdiction comes from?

    If comes from the enabling arguments for the FDA...which, btw, doesn't have any Constitutional standing, either.

  7. #127
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Hard drug bans are 100% justified due to their addictiveness and destructiveness.

    The legalized pot movement is not attached or related in any way to the Liberal push to legalize hard drugs like meth. You're off topic.
    BS, I'm not off topic and you'd know that if you'd actually read and understood the argument. I wish you'd address what I posted instead of dodging it.

    Jerry, please read carefully this time: If you justify banning any drug due to its "addictiveness and destructiveness," then it must be because you believe the bans actually protect people from those consequences. You assume that if the bans on hard drugs were lifted, more people would start using them. In other words, you assume that there is a correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. You assume this in spite of the fact that the world's foremost experts on the subject have not been able to find such a correlation. And you assume this in spite of the fact that you've been shown what the world's foremost experts on the subject have to say about your assumption, in this thread as well as others. So, Jerry, why do you keep assuming things that you know are wrong?

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    BS, I'm not off topic and you'd know that if you'd actually read and understood the argument. I wish you'd address what I posted instead of dodging it.
    Of course I'm dodging it, IT'S NOT ABOUT POT!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    Jerry, please read carefully this time: If you justify banning any drug due to its "addictiveness and destructiveness," then it must be because you believe the bans actually protect people from those consequences. You assume that if the bans on hard drugs were lifted, more people would start using them. In other words, you assume that there is a correlation between drug laws and the rate of drug use. You assume this in spite of the fact that the world's foremost experts on the subject have not been able to find such a correlation. And you assume this in spite of the fact that you've been shown what the world's foremost experts on the subject have to say about your assumption, in this thread as well as others. So, Jerry, why do you keep assuming things that you know are wrong?
    I need you to read carefully now: This thread is not about hard drugs; this thread is about pot; on this thread I support legalizing pot, and not a ban.

    You have no grounds to get all pissy at my dodging your argument because your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic. That's why I'm dodging it.

    If you want to discuss hard drugs, go open a thread on hard drugs.

  9. #129
    Guru
    Binary_Digit's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,539

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Of course I'm dodging it, IT'S NOT ABOUT POT!!



    I need you to read carefully now: This thread is not about hard drugs; this thread is about pot; on this thread I support legalizing pot, and not a ban.

    You have no grounds to get all pissy at my dodging your argument because your argument has absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic. That's why I'm dodging it.

    If you want to discuss hard drugs, go open a thread on hard drugs.
    You brought up hard drugs when you claimed that it's your business since it affects you. Erod brought up hard drugs when he mentioned the slippery slope of legalizing marijuana might lead to legalizing hard drugs. Catz Part Deux posted his belief that pot should be legal but hard drugs like meth should remain illegal. This was all on page 1.

    When discussing marijuana laws, it's a natural progression of the debate to discuss the drug laws as a whole. You're the one who wants to draw an arbitrary line at marijuana, and I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense to do that. Legalizing hard drugs is just as necessary as legalizing marijuana, because none of the arguments for throwing drug users in jail make any sense whether it's marijuana or meth.

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Calif tax officials: Legal pot would rake in $1.4B

    Quote Originally Posted by Binary_Digit View Post
    You're the one who wants to draw an arbitrary line at marijuana, and I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't make sense to do that.
    This is why the lossertarian party always fails.

    Overreaching.

    You can't pass any single law which will legalize all drugs in one grand motion.

    Even if I supported legalizing hard drugs, it's still a perfectly legitimate position to only want to deal with pot at this time, in this piece of legislation. It could be seen as pushing the line back one step at a time.

Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •