Skip to comments.
Marijuana profits up in smoke under ITS rules [link only]
USA Today [link only]
| November 4, 2014
| Katie Kuntz
Posted on 11/04/2014 1:12:54 PM PST by grundle
link only:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/03/irs-limits-profits-marijuana-businesses/18165033
TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: cannabis; conservingdependency; potheads
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-109 next last
To: elhombrelibre
You never answered if you favor prostitutionIt was as off-topic then as it is now - but since you can't address the subject at hand: legal prostitution seems to be working well for Nevada.
21
posted on
11/05/2014 10:57:13 AM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
LOL, “Pot and Prostitution!” You are a libertarian utopian.
22
posted on
11/05/2014 11:05:35 AM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
To: elhombrelibre
Opposite - it's crimnalization of vice that's utopian, as it leaves vice intact while enriching criminals and putting vice outside the realm of effective regulation.
23
posted on
11/05/2014 11:09:47 AM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
running in circles on the logic there
24
posted on
11/05/2014 11:10:51 AM PST
by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: GeronL
it's crimnalization of vice that's utopian, as it leaves vice intact while enriching criminals and putting vice outside the realm of effective regulation. running in circles on the logic there
I don't think you know what 'circular logic' means - but here's your opportunity to leave egg on my face by showing how my logic is circular.
25
posted on
11/05/2014 11:13:39 AM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
Recognizing that people and society is not perfect and not perfectible is the antithesis of Utopian. Desiring laws that are necessary to curb dangerous things is not Utopian by definition.
26
posted on
11/05/2014 11:17:27 AM PST
by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: ConservingFreedom
Would you criminalize non-government pot and prostitutes? Would that be vise that’s utopian, too?
27
posted on
11/05/2014 11:20:52 AM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
To: GeronL
I see a statist logic in the line of reasoning. All vice gets to belong to the state to manage - dope, prostitutes, etc. It’s really just another way to undermine virtue and expand the state.
28
posted on
11/05/2014 11:36:36 AM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
To: elhombrelibre
Would you criminalize non-government pot and prostitutes?On the contrary, I think non-government pot, prostitutes, booze, and triple-scoop hot fudge sundaes are the only kind there should be - government's proper role is not to sell goods and services.
29
posted on
11/05/2014 11:43:03 AM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
But you’d regulate prostitution, right? You’d make sure kids couldn’t be used in it, right? Say you’re not for child prostitution just so can be sure you’re not too far gone.
30
posted on
11/05/2014 11:47:12 AM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
To: GeronL
it's criminalization of vice that's utopian, as it leaves vice intact while enriching criminals and putting vice outside the realm of effective regulation. Recognizing that people and society is not perfect and not perfectible is the antithesis of Utopian. Desiring laws that are necessary to curb dangerous things is not Utopian by definition.
To criminalize is not to curb, but in fact to remove the ability to curb - as I said, "putting vice outside the realm of effective regulation." For example: widespread tainting of alcohol existed in the USA only when alcohol was criminalized; and since well before any state had legalized pot, teens have reported that they could get it more easily than beer or cigarettes ... which is to be expected since legal sellers card and illegal sellers don't.
31
posted on
11/05/2014 11:48:29 AM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: elhombrelibre
interesting way of looking at it and not wrong either
32
posted on
11/05/2014 11:49:41 AM PST
by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: elhombrelibre
But youd regulate prostitution, right? Youd make sure kids couldnt be used in it, right?Of course - but regulated X is not "government X" ... and regulation is impossible once a commodity or service is driven into the black market by criminalization.
33
posted on
11/05/2014 11:50:36 AM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
Okay, so you’d play semantics with prostitution and pot. You’re in favor of some government regulated pot and prostitution.
34
posted on
11/05/2014 12:01:30 PM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
To: elhombrelibre
great way of looking at it but I’m not sure the pot heads care as long as they can get theirs.
35
posted on
11/05/2014 12:03:15 PM PST
by
newnhdad
(Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
To: elhombrelibre
regulated X is not "government X"youd play semantics with prostitution and pot
The semantic games are all yours - gasoline is regulated, so do you claim it's "government gasoline"? Cars are regulated, so do you claim they're "government cars"?
36
posted on
11/05/2014 12:04:12 PM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: elhombrelibre; GeronL; newnhdad
All vice gets to belong to the stateNobody's calling for that - it's a straw man.
37
posted on
11/05/2014 12:06:06 PM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
You equate gas, cars, and prostitution as all being commodities you’d be fine with regulating. Would you be willing to be a prostitute?
38
posted on
11/05/2014 12:47:34 PM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
To: elhombrelibre
The semantic games are all yours - gasoline is regulated, so do you claim it's "government gasoline"? Cars are regulated, so do you claim they're "government cars"? You equate gas, cars, and prostitution as all being commodities youd be fine with regulating.
The only "equating" was your foolish equation of regulated pot with "government pot." But some levels of regulation are appropriate for all the commodities you list.
Would you be willing to be a prostitute?
No, nor a septic tank cleaner - should we ban that too?
39
posted on
11/05/2014 1:14:00 PM PST
by
ConservingFreedom
(A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
To: ConservingFreedom
You think prostitution is the same as cleaning septic tanks? You’re finding it more and more difficult to make your sophistries of any merit beyond being absurd.
40
posted on
11/05/2014 1:44:59 PM PST
by
elhombrelibre
(Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-109 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson