Posted on 04/22/2013 6:05:45 AM PDT by Lonely Bull
Yummmmm...
Have some Genetically Modified Veggies on the side! LOL!
Ovens came with the house. Nothin’ says lovin’ like some bacon from the oven. Or is that bakin’? Since the ‘82 Strat is a blackout I guess I could pass it off to the loons as “representing” what we all seek. No power use at all for anybody dudes. Fossil free for everyone. LOL! As they listen in their latest patagonia outdoor gear made of synthetics.
They will probably tell you that their synthetic tents are pleasing to the goddess.
This is why:
The Natural alternative to Nylon is Canvas.
Canvas is made from COTTON.
Cotton is not a food crop, and is allowed to be doused with chemicals.
Yet, Cottonseed Oil is used in our food!
Cotton also caused slavery, oppression, and the term “cotton pickin’” is a racial slur.
Because of Cotton, People-of-color in the USA are oppressed by the man.
Cotton should be outlawed because there still exist people who derive their living from picking this evil crop, and those people are OPPRESSED.
Cotton was used in the filament of the early incandescent evil non-squiggly Light Bulb!
COTTON IS EVIL!
BAN COTTON!
(As well as the ubiquitous and deadly solvent, Di-hydrogen monoxide!!!)
You forgot one thing about evil cotton. It’s WHITE! Proof positive that cotton is racist.
I remember, I remember
The wondrous Woodstock Fair;
In August,'69, it was,
And all the Heads were there;
Four hundred thousand made the trip,
So Walter Cronkite says.
To groove the Who, the Grateful Dead,
Canned Heat, and Joan Baez!
I remember, I remember,
The traffic unforseen
That clogged the lanes for countless miles
On Highway 17;
And even while I write this verse
I fear there is no doubt
That many drivers still are there
Attempting to get out!
I remember, I remember,
That groovy, swinging scene,
That field of wheat that soon became
An open-air latrine;
And how it warmed our happy hearts
And filled us with good cheer
To know the farmer wouldn't need
To buy manure next year!
I remember, I remember,
The way my nights were spent;
The pleasure when I bedded down
Inside my little tent;
And how I found, on waking up,
That all men were my brothers;
That I'd been joined throughout the night
By forty-seven other!
I remember, I remember,
That bleary, bombed-out mass
That wandered 'round the countryside
Freaked out on hash and grass;
Not all of them, I wish to say,
Possessed a glassy stare;
A few, in fact, could still recall
The reason they were there!
I remember, I remember,
That cataclysmic flood
Of rain that tumbled from the sky
And turned the Fair to mud;
And how the crowd threw off its clothes
And mingled in the bare,
Until the place looked something like
The final scene from "Hair!"
I remember, I remember,
The wondrous Woodstock Fair;
But wait -- I haven't told you of
The rock that I heard there;
I'd really like to fill you in,
But much to my dismay,
The closest that I got to it
Was seven miles away!
My Bad! LOL!
King of the Hill episode about dirty hippies. Truth. These people care about 1 thing, themselves and how they feel about things.
Let the trash stay it’s a good reminder of what type of people they are.
What was to be expected? How much is it different from the Occupy (oqπ)?
On the positive side, those who have been on the "fence" of favouring the marijuana legalization - "medical" or "recreational" - will now think hard if that's a good thing, and whether they and/or their children should be exposed to it. "Occupy" took a huge public relation and image hit when people in NY, L.A., saw the results and the financial and environmental damage of the "movement" despite major media doing everything possible to divert the attention and focus from the damages and inconveniences to some unspecific and rambling "grievencas" and "solutions" to "inequality" of mythical 99%.
The media wants to "normalize" the dopers in the hearts and minds of the public by creating and focusing on a sympathetic portrayal of them, the same way they have done (largely successfully) over the years with the homosexuals on TV programs.
The more they are out in the open, with their typical behaviour that cannot be hidden, the less sympathy they and their "cause" is likely to attain.
nude with a carrot shoved up your ass.
I’m sorry I missed that, must have been raining.
Never mind that the illegality of marijuana hyperinflates its profits and channels those profits into criminal and terrorist hands. Pot smokers are slobs!
Unfortunately, you repeat the [academic] assumptions that are not supported by any reasonable statistics, even from pro-legalizing groups (unless cherry-picked in an apples-to-oranges fashion, the same way the U.S. anti-gun groups use their "statistics" and "polls" comparing to "gun-controlled" European countries to sway the population) and have not borne in practice where tried (e.g., Netherlands, where it's de facto decriminalized, regulated, taxed and is legally sold in their "coffee shoppes") and have no relationship to reality.
Not to make this a long post, complete with facts and tables refuting your assumptions, for which you had no empirical basis, but just a few points to yet again refute the above arguments:
Legalization of marijuana in Netherlands (as so-called class D "soft drugs" which are "tolerated" as opposed to "unacceptable risks" class A/B "hard drugs" such as heroin, cocaine, ecstasy/"X", PCP etc.) had no effect of lowering the prices or reducing the illegal drug trade in both marijuana (to those who are otherwise ineligible) or the "hard drugs". Even most serious pro-marijuana groups acknowledge these facts, however some are trying to compare selected numbers to the U.S. "illegal marijuana scenario" rather than to their pre- Opium Acts Directive years or their European neighbors where the weed has long been and still is illegal, or to more homogeneous [than the U.S.} societies such as Japan.
For example, just one study by these groups, acknowledged that: ..... After the closures, most of the young cannabis users still got their cannabis through friends who buy it at coffee shops, so the measures did not seem to have much effect on the availability of cannabis. ... After the closure of all the coffee shops in Roosendaal/Bergen-op-Zoom the number of foreign drug tourists diminished with 90 per cent. The reported coffee shop related public nuisance diminished with more than 20 per cent. ... However, part of the illegal drugs market remained and is still dealing with foreigners..." [Roosendaal en Bergen-op-Zoom is on the Netherland's border] < snip > ..... "On 1 June 2009 16 coffee shops were closed in Rotterdam, because they were located too close to secondary schools and schools for vocational training. Research showed that in areas where coffee shops were closed, there was a decrease both in the occurrence of nuisance (from 58 per cent to 42 per cent) and in the experienced public nuisance (for example: experienced traffic nuisance decreased in areas with closed coffee shops from 51% to 36 % and remained the same in areas were coffee shop had stayed). The respondents had the impression that the supply of cannabis from illegal selling points had also decreased since the closure of the 16 coffee shops. ..... < snip >
In fact, there is clear evidence that marijuana in Netherlands has become stronger, on average (higher percentage of THC content) than has been before decriminalization and than in neighboring "illegal" European countries, as well as relative to the average sold and consumed in the U.S.
From Strains of Dutch marijuana deemed to be on a par with heroin - In Holland Now, 2013 February 08
Did you know that 75% of Dutch-sold marijuana is home-grown within the Netherlands? Most of this Dutch marijuana has a 15 to 18% THC content. They are trying to 'weed out' the stronger strains out of the coffee shops. However, according to Mark Josemans, spokesman for the Maastricht coffee shop owners association in an interview with De Volkskrant, this will probably not have a terribly significant impact on the tourist industry because it is the weaker weed that is found in coffee shops and the stronger weed that is found on the street. ..... < snip > ..... This past Monday, 19th of November, justice minister Ivo Opstelten announced at a cabinet meeting that stronger strains of cannabis may become classified as Class A drugs alongside cocaine or heroine. If THC, the active ingredient in marijuana is above 15% then it will be deemed a Class A drug. A definitive date for this restriction has not been decided, but it is not likely to be set for this year, according to RTL news.
Also, take a look at California where the sham of "medical" marijuana trade has been in effect for many (?) years now. Many municipalities there have passed ordinances banning or severely limiting the "green prescription" dispensaries due to rising crime and legal costs they are experiencing.
So, do you really think that "new" enforcement and regulations will in any way diminish the power of the state or make it cheaper for taxpayers or reduce the crime or lead to better, more enlightened citizenship?
Re "channels those profits into criminal and terrorist hands" - it is one of the weakest and more dishonest arguments one can make about marijuana legalization.
First, there is not that much profit margin in the distribution chain of marijuana for criminals or terrorists to bother with it, as opposed to class A opioid trade (opium / morphine, cocaine etc.) and/or [semi-]synthetic drugs such as MDMA/ecstasy or many LSD-like derivatives.
Second, following the above logic of "depriving" the criminals and terrorists of illicit profits on drugs, should we then legalize/decriminalize class A/B and derivative drugs because that is supposedly the best and least expensive way of doing it?
I suggest, in the future, libertarians think things through and few steps ahead a little bit, before they trap themselves with such arguments.
Unfortunately, you repeat the [academic] assumptions that are not supported by any reasonable statistics
Except those relating to the legalization of the drug alcohol:
"The lush traffic in alcohol beverages during the violent years of 1920 to 1933 had laid the base of organization for a number of criminal gangs. The termination of the ban on liquor deprived these gangs of their most lucrative source of money" - Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce
Legalization of marijuana in Netherlands
Never happened - production of marijuana is still illegal and thus still the exclusive province of criminals.
For example, just one study by these groups, acknowledged that:
All words unrelated to price deleted ... leaving nothing.
In fact, there is clear evidence that marijuana in Netherlands has become stronger
So what? Smoke less for the same high - stay healthier.
Also, take a look at California where the sham of "medical" marijuana trade
Also not legalization.
First, there is not that much profit margin in the distribution chain of marijuana for criminals or terrorists to bother with it
Oh, so marijuana is brought to market by the Girl Scouts?
Second, following the above logic of "depriving" the criminals and terrorists of illicit profits on drugs, should we then legalize/decriminalize class A/B and derivative drugs
Yes.
Its all for the children of course
potheads should be kept far far from kids
Only a legal regulated market can be kept from kids - not a black market such as we have now in pot. Kids report that they can get pot more easily than cigarettes or beer.
Its legal” in CO and yet they bring their kids to pot rallies.
disgusting cretins
That's wrong - just as it was wrong for that woman who left her kids in the car while she drank at a bar. Is banning alcohol the answer?
Except those relating to the legalization of the drug alcohol:
"The lush traffic in alcohol beverages during the violent years of 1920 to 1933 had laid the base of organization for a number of criminal gangs. The termination of the ban on liquor deprived these gangs of their most lucrative source of money" - Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce
1. That's not a statistic or empirical evidence of mythical "hyperinflated profits" of marijuana trade (I will explain the economics of illegal drugs and Girl Scout Cookies later ****) - it's a pure political statement by a political body with a political agenda ("Special Committee to Investigate..." like the travesties of the more recent commissions on "9/11" and "2008 financial crisis" which absolved the guilty and condemned the innocent). Essentially, after the re-legalization all they did was to rename the "criminal gangs" into "distributors" and therefore the formerly "criminal" gangs (who could now use legal distribution to finance their other illegal activities) were no longer "criminal" - presto-change-o, I do declare, the problem of "illegality" is magically solved! It's no different than granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens / "undocumented Democrats" and declaring the problem of "illegality" solved. It's simply a political statement describing a change in political/legal circumstances, not the financial, economic or social one.
2. This already flawed example further confuses and deliberately tries to equate the economics and science of 1920s with the economics of 2000s, and the production and distribution economics, chemistry and biochemistry of cannabis with "drug alcohol" ***.
For example, there were very few countries in the early 20th century to ever prohibit production and consumption of alcohol (Canada provinces 1901-1924; some territories in Australia 1910-1928; Sweden, Finland, Norway had versions of Dry Law in 1910s and repealed in 1920s; USA was pretty much late to the Prohibition show in 1919 and nearly alone before its repeal in 1933) and less than a dozen Muslim countries which are members of Organization of Islamic Cooperation who currently have Prohibition on alcohol. By contrast, there are very few countries where marijuana or hashish is legal or de facto legal (Cambodia, Egypt don't enforce the laws; North Korea doesn't have laws against marijuana), only few countries have decriminalized it and are still struggling with the consequences of "tolerance" policy.
Like I said before, marijuana pro-legalization people must resort to using apples-to-oranges comparisons (with comparison to alcohols or "not really legalized" line) to justify their position. In reality, they are just being used to actually increase the power of and the flow of money to the state which will regulate, tax and "protect" the population from both legal/decriminalized pot as well as intensifying the enforcement against illegal, cheaper (untaxed and unregulated, sold to/where is illegal etc.) and more potent weed. Even if it was possible to significantly reduce the price of marijuana, the government has no interest in "cheap" marijuana because that would bring in lower tax revenue (which is what most governments are concerned with) and wouldn't feed and offset the expense of regulating/compliance/taxing apparatus, and the "expensive" marijuana is, again, a good bait for the illegal "crime gangs" - no wonder so many people don't understand the economic and social impact of pot legalization, they attempt to compare it to the myths or the wrong sample of facts. "We often give our enemies the means of our own destruction" - Aesop
Legalization of marijuana in Netherlands
Never happened - production of marijuana is still illegal and thus still the exclusive province of criminals.
Also, take a look at California where the sham of "medical" marijuana trade
Also not legalization.
Did you know that 75% of Dutch-sold marijuana is home-grown within the Netherlands?
So "still the exclusive province of criminals" is an obviously nonsensical statement. This home-grown and the marijuana sold in "coffee shops" are not grown by "criminal gangs" and yet, as I've already shown, it didn't reduce crime rates or got rid of the "crime gangs" nor has it enriched the state or the cities, with the possible exception of Amsterdam that relies on "marijuana tourism" - nevertheless, as I already explained, trying to get rid of "criminal gangs" by legalizing marijuana is a fool's errand derived from misunderstanding the economics of marijuana and other illegal drugs, and the real reasons why the "state" is primarily interested in legalizing/decriminalizing pot.
Those who are hoping that "true" legalization will give them the weed cheaper than now would be in for a big surprise. There is simply not enough profit margin in the distribution chain of weed farming to make it so. And the marijuana market is efficient, legal or illegal (in other words, there are many channels and distribution points to have price competition and not allow a price elasticity - in fact, small amounts of marijuana are often given for free, to secure the "customers" on the way to upselling them much more profitable "hard" drugs, since the body tolerance to marijuana usually develops very quickly and they need larger hits or potency).
The main proponent of pot legalization, R.J. MacCoun, who proposed that California's Prop 19 (strangely, defeated) would reduce the price by ridiculous 80% (apparently his main selling point) keeps trying to explain away the fact that in Netherlands it didn't reduce the price, or the crime the same way - "it's not really legalization" Since there are no statistics or empirical examples of marijuana "real legalization", where does the notion that it would bring a drastic reduction in prices, especially unaccompanied with the higher crime rates or the mythical elimination of the "criminal gangs" which hasn't been the case anywhere else? It could only come as a selling point based on biased opinion, trying to put pressure on some politicians or convince people to vote for it?
In fact, there is clear evidence that marijuana in Netherlands has become stronger
So what? Smoke less for the same high - stay healthier.
"Healthier"?
Marijuana long-term effects? - Columbia University, NY
*** Re comparisons to "drug" alcohol (fermented substances, which include significant variances in taste, concentration and intensity and processing, such as beer [brewed, 2%-9%], wine [longer fermentation, 10%-19%], spirits [20%-80%], vinegar [from French "sour wine"] and gasohol) - it's a straw-man argument:
Drugged Driving Safer than Drunk Driving? - by David J. Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York at Potsdam
In reality marijuana can affect concentration, perception and reaction time up to 24 hours after it's smoked says the federal director of drug policies, John Walters. That's much, much longer than alcohol can affect behavior. But while marijuana might affect behavior much longer than alcohol and be much more dangerous for driving, it is much safer in that people are very rarely arrested for driving while drugged. A drug counselor and recovering addict, Allison Whitney of Atlanta, says that she got into several crashes as a teenager because of smoking pot while driving. Although she would get pulled over for erratic driving, police would always let her go because she passed breathalyzer tests. Ms. Whitney says marijuana is especially attractive to teenagers because it's easier to hide than alcohol, a person can get high faster than they can get intoxicated, and parents don't detect marijuana. ..... < snip > A study by the Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety of interstate tractor-trailer drivers found that 15% of all drivers had marijuana, 12% had non-prescription stimulants, 5% had prescription stimulants, 2% had cocaine, and fewer than 1% had alcohol in their systems. ..... < snip > Drugged Driving is safer than drunk driving in the minds of many teenagers.
Unlike THC, alcohol / ethyl is excreted much faster from the system, gives plenty of "warning signals" when consumption exceeds body's tolerance (to activate body's self-defense mechanism) and the hangovers are not exactly conducive to repeating the experience, and is overwhelmingly consumed not to "get high" as it may have beneficial effect on the system in normal/smaller doses (in fact, as a natural product of fermentation, alcohol is almost always naturally present in the system / GIT, in doses to which most of us aren't sensitive) while, in contrast, "getting high" is almost exclusive province for consumption of marijuana (outside of small percentage of people who really need and could easily find better and/or cheaper, non-addictive painkillers).
Possible long-term effects of ethanol, harmful and beneficial (large png)
"Alcohol is a Drug" - by David J. Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York at Potsdam
< snip > ..... By equating alcoholic beverages with illegal street drugs, anti-alcohol activists attempt to create negative attitudes toward such beverages. That makes it easier to promote higher alcohol taxes, more stringent restrictions on the times and places alcohol can be sold, censorship of alcohol advertising, and similar policies to reduce alcohol consumption. Although this is a deceptive tactic, it appears to be effective.
"Alcohol is a Poison" - by David J. Hanson, Ph.D., State University of New York at Potsdam
Honest communication doesn't mislead or deceive. Calling alcohol a poison is misleading and deceptive. < snip > ..... Toxicologists emphasize that "the dosage makes the poison." Although salt, water, oxygen, aspirin, alcohol beverages, and many other substances can cause poisoning in excessive amounts, it makes no sense to call them poisons. So why do so many groups and organizations insist on calling alcohol a poison? Apparently to stigmatize alcoholic beverages and frighten people into alcohol abstinence. The tactic was first used effectively by the Anti-Saloon League, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, the KKK and other anti-alcohol groups. The technique is still widely used today.
First, there is not that much profit margin in the distribution chain of marijuana for criminals or terrorists to bother with it
Oh, so marijuana is brought to market by the Girl Scouts?
I appreciate the attempt at sarcasm, but it only shows, not surprisingly, an obvious lack of understanding of Girl Scout Cookies (and illegal drugs) economics, apparently under the misguided assumption that Girl Scouts is a "non-profit" organization.
**** The box of Girl Scout Cookies sells for about $3.50. Of that, the troops (those young pretty girls who sell you perfectly legal "drug" sugar by the pound) keep about $0.70 - that's a net of 20% profit per box. The National Girl Scouts of America keep $1.00, about $1.50 goes to local and regional GS organizations.
The net profit margin for the bakers who actually made the cookies is anywhere from 1% to 5%, at best (which is in line with the large non-unionized bakeries such as Grupo Bimbo or Flower Foods). By way of comparison, chocolatiers make an average net profit of about 10%, legal "drug" caffeine / coffee sellers (Starbucks, Peet's etc.) - about 10%, generic drug makers - about 10%-13%, the biotechs net about 25%.
The highly efficient, vertically integrated marijuana farm achieves about 6%. This is real, empirical data, not the theories from FantasyLand. Data is from The Pot Business Suffers Growing Pains - WSJ, by Ana Campoy, 2013 April 20
A major drag on earnings for marijuana growers is the labor-intensive nature of the business. Payroll can make up more than a third of production costs, says Jason Katz, chief operating officer of Local Product of Colorado. ..... < snip > < snip > ..... Another outfit, La Conte's Clone Bar & Dispensary, formed a partnership with another marijuana firm to share some costs. But it produced a profit margin of only 6% on revenues of $4.2 million last year, according to Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Heidl, who says he considers that an unacceptable return given the financial and legal risks. To expand the business, the firm has branched out to sell everything from smoke-free dispensers to body salves and brownies infused with pot. Still, he says, "the economics of cannabis are so difficult."
Don't forget, they also have to compete with the criminal gangs who don't have the costs of taxation, regulation, inspections and compliance with various state and city rules and limitations on storage, security, eligibility verifications, or make claims of better "quality" or higher potency, etc. etc.
Of course, nothing beats the profit of hard drugs. One pound of wholesale marijuana costs $2,000-$4,000, difficult to grow and bulky to transport. One gram of LSD goes for $10,000-$20,000 and can be spread over 10,000 "hits" (at 100mcg per hit) - it's much denser, far easier to store and far less difficult transport (without being detected). So where do you think the significant profits of cartels or "criminal gangs" are and what do they really want to supply their "customers" - marijuana or hard drugs? If marijuana legalization makes it easier for them to finance their real business, how is any of this helping the taxpayers or reduce the crime unless we assume that most violent crime is directly related to the criminal gangs robbing and murdering each other rather than addicts committing criminal acts to get money or to get high? How does legalizing and creating more addicts help the situation?
So when those little Girls Scouts try to sell you their legal "drug" sugar, think twice before buying it... They are making much more money off your "sugar high" than you realize - "Just say no to drugs!"
Second, following the above logic of "depriving" the criminals and terrorists of illicit profits on drugs, should we then legalize/decriminalize class A/B and derivative drugs
Yes.
I doubt that WA and CO voters would approve the recreational heroin, cocaine or LSD, ecstasy etc. if it were on the ballot (of course, opiates already available for medical use by prescription)... But we just have to "soften" them up with marijuana, and when enough of them get hooked and need a bigger "high" we just might get the "enlightened ones" to vote for "hard" drugs, right? Ingenious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
