Posted on 08/28/2014 11:26:39 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
Yes, a few decades is exactly like thousands of years.
Why not? When ISIS invades, the leftists won’t even know who sent them to permanent oblivion.
Pinging you both, because this relates to a discussion we were having (on this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3196272/posts) about the likely price of legal pot (in Wa) after supply and demand agree to meet somewhere. I think this is where Washington state prices are headed too. It’s just applied economics and tax policy in action.
“The tax burden imposed by Measure 91 would be more modest than that adopted in Washington. Taxes would be levied at the point of sale by producers and would range from $5 per immature plant to $35 per ounce for flowers. These rates might strike some as too low, but taxing legal pot too heavily would merely give people an incentive to keep buying on the black market. In any case, the measure directs the OLCC to review tax rates regularly and recommend appropriate changes to the Legislature.”
Not really. There are lots of legal drugs besides alcohol, so the argument is specious. What's implied is "there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about why alcohol is legal, and why all other illegal drugs are not", but that's circular logic.
Too many, really. So many seem to have lost the love and vision for freedom. Hard to tell what some of these people believe in.
Right. The only way out for states with guts and determination to be free may be to start refusing federal funds and start becoming economically independent of the federal government.
You’re confusing unconstitutional federal drug laws against private citizens with constitutionally mandated defense of our country from threats and attacks from foreign countries.
From what I’ve been reading here on FR, it seems that just about everyone that wants to use pot, already does. Especially in those states that have legalized medicinal use of it. I don’t see how things are really going to change that much.
No i'm not. I simply recognize that drugs constitutes a sufficient threat that the Constitutional defense clause applies. Again, a lot of people are not grasping the fact that Drugs wiped out China.
drugs constitutes a sufficient threat that the Constitutional defense clause applies
A complete misapplication of the defense clause. "Providing for the common defense" applies to defending the Unites States against the threat of foreign invasion as evidenced by the authorization of creating military forces - not against United States citizens for crying out loud, but against foreign threat of invasion.
This is the kind of unconstitutional reasoning the Leftists use to justify increasing the power and threat of the $4,000,000,000,000 federal government which doesn't give a d*#m about its own constitutional boundaries or your constitutional rights.
Yes, a few decades is exactly like thousands of years.
What a churlish nonresponse. I can see why you omitted the text to which you were pretending to respond.
What will change is that legal providers will be able through market mechanisms to take business away from illegal providers i.e. criminals.
Yes, the business/economic things will change. Socially, I doubt much change. I think that as it gets more available and acceptable, people will navigate more towards ingesting it rather than smoking it. The legalization/control of it should make the quality of these products more constant, and as a result safer.
The Founding Fathers would be ashamed at what the Drug War has wrought. SWAT raids for smells, and dead grandmas and dogs, abused asset forfeiture, for profit policing, for profit prisons, mandatory minimums that make no sense and cost the tax payer $30k plus. The abuses of the Drug War are legion and certainly can’t be what the founding fathers envisioned.
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.