Drugs + guns = DEATH!

[phill]

Kind of unusual for a old guy. I have said for a long time that there is very little difference between whiskey and Camel cigarettes or pot. The difference is the law not the products.

[Carnes]

Originally Posted by jon'76

I honestly think (call me crazy) that if someone wants to use drugs and carry they have the right to do so, but if they cause any harm at all then they should be held fully liable.

Our society has replaced individual choice with unlimited liability for those choices, with government decrees and limited liabilities for ones actions. After all its not his fault, he's a good boy if he wasn't drunk it never would have happened please be lenient.

You are crazy. But I agree with you.

We currently have way too many laws. It is very likely that each of us breaks several laws every day. Maybe it is speeding, listening to pirated music, sexually harassing a coworker, or perhaps something more serious that we put under the umbrella of 'bending the rules.'

If we got rid of all the 'preventative laws' and limited our system almost exclusively to laws designed to punish specific behavior we might be able to have a system that makes sense. The law could let you drink and drive as much as you want, but if you injure someone while doing that, you go to jail, do not pass go, no second chances. If people understood it was serious, dead serious, people would not be so inclined to do it. As it is now, people know they can get a few DUIs and never go to jail, keep their LTCF and whatever else.

Having tons and tons of extra laws that do not need to be there only cause people to loose respect for the law. Imagine if I drive to work in the morning and speed on the way, and roll through a couple stop signs. Then I see Suzie at work and since her and I get along so well, I know she will not turn me in when I illegally pinch her butt. I take off at the end of the day a few mins early, and grab a box of paper clips, since I ran out at home. I stop at the bar on the way back and have two beers... Well maybe three. I'm certainly not drunk, but if I got into an accident I would be over the limit in that situation. Either way, when I get home, I watch the new movie that I downloaded off the internet and pop a few Tylenol PM before bed.

That is a normal day for many people... And we wonder why our society has such a problem with the legal system.

[knighthawk06699]

Originally Posted by phill

Kind of unusual for a old guy. I have said for a long time that there is very little difference between whiskey and Camel cigarettes or pot. The difference is the law not the products.

I think what it has to come down to is this, the government bans things that it can not get it's guppy greedy hands into. From what I have read a drunk monkey can grow weed, so every one would be able to grow and there fore the feds would not get any money from it.

Think of it this way also, just cause the feds ban it does not make it dangerous, it just says that it does not fall into some one else's agenda. Case and point the Clinton AWB there is ntohing wrong with AW as we all know but it was still banned. Ask yourself this question if they ever do ban guns in this country will you turn yours in or continue to carry and own? If you do keep them, all the sudden it now makes no better than the guy with the bong in his hand sitting in his house in his undies watching the Simpsons and putting a serious hurting in a bag of cheetos.

[P-11 shooter]

[shefearsnothing]

people don't like paying taxes

Well they don't have to buy it if it's taxed and they don't like it then.

[Adam M Geer]

Sixty years ago, would we be having this conversation about marijuana? The world function just fine with it in the past, why not now? I believe Alcohol has more of a negative influence and is more dangerous then marijuana.

[Carnes]

Originally Posted by knighthawk06699

I think what it has to come down to is this, the government bans things that it can not get it's guppy greedy hands into. From what I have read a drunk monkey can grow weed, so every one would be able to grow and there fore the feds would not get any money from it.

While I do not deny that this is a possibility, I have some doubts. I doubt it is harder to grow tobacco than it would be to grow pot. Also, it is plenty easy to brew beer and wine at home. In either case, the vast majority of tobacco, beer and wine (as well as a number of other things) are produced and bought commercially.

If pot were legal, there would be a number of people that grow it themselves, but it would be far more convenient to go down to the corner-store and pick-up a pack of 'Marlboro Reefers.'

Also there would be the quality and consistency question. My buddy down the street does his own home brewing. Sometimes he has some great beer... Other times, eh... not so good. I know when I go to the six-pack shop, I am consistently be able to get a beer of a certain quality and potency. Same thing would happen if they legalize pot.

While some people would grow their own, it would be largely commercial, just like anything else. Hell, when is the last time someone knitted you a sweater? Just too easy and convenient to buy one.

If they taxed it, phew! They could make a killing. I read somewhere that a marijuana crop has three times the yield of a tobacco crop of similar size. So, if it costs $3 to produce a pack of cigarettes, one could argue that it would cost $1 to produce a pack of 'reefers.' There would be other factors... So lets just say it costs $5 to produce a pack of reefers. I would guess that a pack of ciggs is around an ounce, and a quick google search suggests that the street price for an ounce of marijuana goes for between $100 to $400 for 'really good stuff.'

So, if it costs... hell for the sake for argument $10 for Marlboro to produce an ounce pack of 'reefers' the government could throw a 500% tax on it, bringing the cost to $50 which would still be way below the $100 people normally pay. I imagine the stoners would be overjoyed, and the govt would get to collect the cash rather than the local crips and bloods.

And really all these estimates are rather conservative. If Marlboro started selling the 'Marlboro Reefers' that they already have copyright, trademark, and patents for, I am sure they would be the top quality kind of stuff that people would normally pay $500 for an ounce of...

Yeah, I think the government would stand to make huge amounts of money from taxing marijuana.

[jon'76]

That video was amazing . The kid was stunned that paul would say such a thing lol.

I am now in the process of praying for an election day miracle that involves the computer system breaking and attributing every vote to Ron Paul.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

Well they don't have to buy it if it's taxed and they don't like it then.

...or they will find a cheaper source that is not taxed.

[P-11 shooter]

Originally Posted by jon'76

That video was amazing . The kid was stunned that paul would say such a thing lol.

I am now in the process of praying for an election day miracle that involves the computer system breaking and attributing every vote to Ron Paul.

That's why he's the best choice for presdent I have ever seen.

That guy tells it like it is!