thejuggernaut wrote:It's astonishing how many folks there are who think legalization of pot will result in fewer police eyeballs on them.
Hahaha, it WILL. You can't underestimate the ridiculous amount of funding that goes towards fighting the war on drugs, on all levels - local, state and federal law enforcement. And pot is always good for a quick and dirty bust to justify a few of those dollars.
Hahaha, yeah ok.
We'll see what happens when pot becomes a source of tax revenue and what happens to people who fuck with the government's income.
You can't underestimate the amount of funding that will go toward insuring nobody is dealing in contraband pot.
exactly, the government isn't known for cutting jobs, even when they become obsolete or unnecessary, and as I already said in this thread, law enforcement agencies from the federal level on down, not to mention lawyers on both sides of the fence and prisons would all stand to lose a whole lot, and they're not going to let that happen without a fight
exactly, the government isn't known for cutting jobs, even when they become obsolete or unnecessary, and as I already said in this thread, law enforcement agencies from the federal level on down, not to mention lawyers on both sides of the fence and prisons would all stand to lose a whole lot, and they're not going to let that happen without a fight
Up here in Canada, the cost of cigarettes is mostly taxes, ranging from %63-79.
The penalties for contraband tobacco put the pot laws to shame, because you're fucking with revenue.
One of my bros is a federal police officer working in intelligence. He used to be a narc and the primary reason he switched from narcotics was because more resources are committed to regulating tobacco, and the punishment for dealing in contraband cigarettes greatly exceeds that of pot.
Anyone who thinks legalizing pot will get the police off their backs is either in a drug induced haze when saying so, or are completely detached from reality.
chickenona wrote:Cali's semilegalization seems to be having the opposite effect there, though.
You're talking about one state, a busted one at that, serving as almost a trial run.
It will be a whole different issue when it becomes federal.
I hope to god you don't think that legalization will result in the federal government just saying "let them have at it; we'll collect our revenue when they buy things".
Either they'll set up agencies/departments to grow/distribute it, or they'll contract it out.
They'll want control and with that control will come strict regulation and policing.
If the interwebz are policed and prosecuted crazily for copyright violation on account of the entertainment biz lobbying for it, how do you think the government will act when it comes to THEIR $$ ??
Interesting take on it Juggs. You don't see much bootleg booze anymore, but you can still brew your own as long as you don't sell it. I'd imagine pot would go much the same way.
bane wrote:Interesting take on it Juggs. You don't see much bootleg booze anymore, but you can still brew your own as long as you don't sell it. I'd imagine pot would go much the same way.
It's possible it would go that way.
However, I do not believe your liquor industry to be controlled by the government, correct ?
Up here it's the same as cigs - the high cost of booze is because it is mostly taxation.
Bootlegger (people who sell alcohol in unlicensed establishments) face relatively stiff penalties, but not so bad because they ultimately bought the booze from the government in the first place.
However, Shiners (people who make moonshine, in case anyone is not familiar with the term) face severe penalties. Technically, they can be punished just for making it, but how would the authorities ever know about it unless they distribute it ?
If government takes over such an industry, you can bet your ass they are going to police the hell out of it and severely punish anyone who fucks with it.
I guess it depends on your definition of "controlled". As far as I know, booze is controlled every bit as much, if not more, than tobacco is. They regulate and tax the hell out of it. The feds have the ATF, and individual states have entire agencies dedicated to regulating it. I'd imagine pot would be handled the same way, and probably by the same agencies. Corporations would grow and sell it and the government would regulate potency etc while making sure they got their cut.
bane wrote:I guess it depends on your definition of "controlled". As far as I know, booze is controlled every bit as much, if not more, than tobacco is. They regulate and tax the hell out of it. The feds have the ATF, and individual states have entire agencies dedicated to regulating it. I'd imagine pot would be handled the same way, and probably by the same agencies. Corporations would grow and sell it and the government would regulate potency etc while making sure they got their cut.
By controlled I mean the way it is here; more than half the cost is tax, and the government calls the shots rather than setting down a spectrum of regulations and policing the adherence.
Here's something.........I don't know if it's interesting, but it is a tad comical.
In maritime Canada, Moosehead is a large brewery. Huge. They make all kinds of wonderfully shitty beer. The shittiest is a beer called "Alpine".
Anyhow, in an attempt to generate even more revenue, the New Brunswick government essentially pulled a grocery trick - they gave Moosehead a shit load of taxpayer money for the rights to Alpine.
They then repackaged it (same recipe, different label) as "Selection" and are selling it as a "discount beer".
Of course, another comical aspect is CBC speaking about this socialized beer.
That, and the NB government talking about price floors to curb drinking problems while offering a cheaper beer clearly designed to get people drinking more.
juggs does have an interesting point about govt control. Here in Mass, it's been de-criminalized, and that's made a big difference for me and all my 21-ish friends. It used to be, we could get pulled over any time day or night, as long as the cop saw some "youngsters" driving about. They would harrass us, manhandle us, demand an illegal search on our car and persons, without ever necessarily saying "I smell pot", find our pipes, bags, bongs, whatever we had, take our stash for themselves, and let us go.
This happened to three of my friends one night while the same thing was happening to a friend of mine and myself a few miles away, while we were parked a cop pulled up behind us and demanded a search. By the time you get to court to complain about any of the rules the cops broke, well most of us just cant afford the lawyers.
Now, there's not nearly as much harassment when we get pulled over around here, they don't demand illegal searches, claim they have ace noses or any of that bullshit.
You mentioned the difference between state-to-state regulation and federal, and how the govt would fight it because of all the job-losses from lawyers, cops, ATF officials, etc, and I have to disagree on account of how much work all those people will still have going after cocaine, which is huge, and heroin, which is becoming a bigger problem where I live.
A lot of good points have been made, and most of you seem to be in agreement that pot should be legalized, so I'll ask which of you think it should not and why?
In the paper, seems a florist
Found in Lincoln Park, died of some anemia
No one raped her, poor Doloris,
Just detained her and drained her on the spot
vanitybinge wrote:juggs does have an interesting point about govt control. Here in Mass, it's been de-criminalized, and that's made a big difference for me and all my 21-ish friends. It used to be, we could get pulled over any time day or night, as long as the cop saw some "youngsters" driving about. They would harrass us, manhandle us, demand an illegal search on our car and persons, without ever necessarily saying "I smell pot", find our pipes, bags, bongs, whatever we had, take our stash for themselves, and let us go.
This happened to three of my friends one night while the same thing was happening to a friend of mine and myself a few miles away, while we were parked a cop pulled up behind us and demanded a search. By the time you get to court to complain about any of the rules the cops broke, well most of us just cant afford the lawyers.
Now, there's not nearly as much harassment when we get pulled over around here, they don't demand illegal searches, claim they have ace noses or any of that bullshit.
You mentioned the difference between state-to-state regulation and federal, and how the govt would fight it because of all the job-losses from lawyers, cops, ATF officials, etc, and I have to disagree on account of how much work all those people will still have going after cocaine, which is huge, and heroin, which is becoming a bigger problem where I live.
A lot of good points have been made, and most of you seem to be in agreement that pot should be legalized, so I'll ask which of you think it should not and why?
The difference in cultures caused by ideology is quite amusing.
When I was a kid, the main rule we had, while doing the driving around thing, was:
Hats off.
It was common knowledge that if a cop sees a car full of people wearing hats, odds are that car was getting pulled over because it was full of ne'er-do-wells (the reason being, civilized and low key kids dressed up because they were trying to impress girls, but guys wearing ballcaps didn't give a shit, thus were more likely to be into something).
Not sure if that reasoning applies today, but it did back then. And the funny part is, none of us even gave it a second thought about whether it was right or wrong; we simply took our hats off because it was what it was.
thejuggernaut wrote:
The difference in cultures caused by ideology is quite amusing.
When I was a kid, the main rule we had, while doing the driving around thing, was:
Hats off.
It was common knowledge that if a cop sees a car full of people wearing hats, odds are that car was getting pulled over because it was full of ne'er-do-wells (the reason being, civilized and low key kids dressed up because they were trying to impress girls, but guys wearing ballcaps didn't give a shit, thus were more likely to be into something).
Not sure if that reasoning applies today, but it did back then. And the funny part is, none of us even gave it a second thought about whether it was right or wrong; we simply took our hats off because it was what it was.
That's funny. When I was a kid it was the opposite. You always carried a hat in the car so you could put your hair up in it to hide the long hair from the cops.
thejuggernaut wrote:
The difference in cultures caused by ideology is quite amusing.
When I was a kid, the main rule we had, while doing the driving around thing, was:
Hats off.
It was common knowledge that if a cop sees a car full of people wearing hats, odds are that car was getting pulled over because it was full of ne'er-do-wells (the reason being, civilized and low key kids dressed up because they were trying to impress girls, but guys wearing ballcaps didn't give a shit, thus were more likely to be into something).
Not sure if that reasoning applies today, but it did back then. And the funny part is, none of us even gave it a second thought about whether it was right or wrong; we simply took our hats off because it was what it was.
Yea things sure are different then they were in the twenties!
In the paper, seems a florist
Found in Lincoln Park, died of some anemia
No one raped her, poor Doloris,
Just detained her and drained her on the spot
thejuggernaut wrote:
The difference in cultures caused by ideology is quite amusing.
When I was a kid, the main rule we had, while doing the driving around thing, was:
Hats off.
It was common knowledge that if a cop sees a car full of people wearing hats, odds are that car was getting pulled over because it was full of ne'er-do-wells (the reason being, civilized and low key kids dressed up because they were trying to impress girls, but guys wearing ballcaps didn't give a shit, thus were more likely to be into something).
Not sure if that reasoning applies today, but it did back then. And the funny part is, none of us even gave it a second thought about whether it was right or wrong; we simply took our hats off because it was what it was.
Yea things sure are different then they were in the twenties!
thejuggernaut wrote:
The difference in cultures caused by ideology is quite amusing.
When I was a kid, the main rule we had, while doing the driving around thing, was:
Hats off.
It was common knowledge that if a cop sees a car full of people wearing hats, odds are that car was getting pulled over because it was full of ne'er-do-wells (the reason being, civilized and low key kids dressed up because they were trying to impress girls, but guys wearing ballcaps didn't give a shit, thus were more likely to be into something).
Not sure if that reasoning applies today, but it did back then. And the funny part is, none of us even gave it a second thought about whether it was right or wrong; we simply took our hats off because it was what it was.
That's funny. When I was a kid it was the opposite. You always carried a hat in the car so you could put your hair up in it to hide the long hair from the cops.
LOL
Nice.
We got that a lot too, but the hat was more visible at night because the peak was easier to see than hair down the back of a seat.
And keep in mind, I am not talking about once you're pulled over; I mean you'd get pulled over for being a car full of people wearing ballcaps.
thejuggernaut wrote:
And keep in mind, I am not talking about once you're pulled over; I mean you'd get pulled over for being a car full of people wearing ballcaps.[/size][/color]
That can't be the reason they gave you....where the hell do you live?
In the paper, seems a florist
Found in Lincoln Park, died of some anemia
No one raped her, poor Doloris,
Just detained her and drained her on the spot
it should. i mean... cigarettes are basically you paying for a heart condition or cancer.
Also, they just are a way of big dickheads making money.
Pot/weed is not dangerous, and also tastes better. It works better, and considering many countries like Kazahkstan have valleys of the stuff growing naturally, if it was legalised it would be cheap due to the sheer amount available!
thejuggernaut wrote:
And keep in mind, I am not talking about once you're pulled over; I mean you'd get pulled over for being a car full of people wearing ballcaps.[/size][/color]
That can't be the reason they gave you....where the hell do you live?
They didn't have to give a reason. They just pulled those types of carloads over because it looks suspicious.
It doesn't take long for word to get around that cops admit they pull over cars with a bunch of guys wearing hats because it looks suspicious.
Especially when some of the cops are parents of your friends.
That's how they roll in eastern Canada. Well, that's how they rolled when I was a kid. It's a little different now.
Last edited by thejuggernaut on Wed Feb 10, 2010 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
RichHoltGuitar wrote:it should. i mean... cigarettes are basically you paying for a heart condition or cancer.
Also, they just are a way of big dickheads making money.
Pot/weed is not dangerous, and also tastes better. It works better, and considering many countries like Kazahkstan have valleys of the stuff growing naturally, if it was legalised it would be cheap due to the sheer amount available!
You must be a child.
1. You don't think "big dickheads" will profit from the legalization of pot ? The politicians will be the ones profiting from it and I have yet to see one that isn't a big dickhead.
weed should be legal. but the more serious drugs like cocaine, speed, heroin, should never be. weed is really harmless. but those other drugs are pure evil. where i live there are so many tweekers it is sad. and all the tweekers have kids and the kids suffer for it. i would have to assume if speed was legal, more people would try it. and if more people try it, there will be more tweekers. so even more kids will suffer.
MegaBeth wrote:weed should be legal. but the more serious drugs like cocaine, speed, heroin, should never be. weed is really harmless. but those other drugs are pure evil. where i live there are so many tweekers it is sad. and all the tweekers have kids and the kids suffer for it. i would have to assume if speed was legal, more people would try it. and if more people try it, there will be more tweekers. so even more kids will suffer.
Weed is harmless when compared to the others in the category it is in, but let's not get carried away with pretending it's benign. Weed most certainly is harmful; it just doesn't have the fear/potential of instant ruination attached to it that the others do.
MegaBeth wrote:weed should be legal. but the more serious drugs like cocaine, speed, heroin, should never be. weed is really harmless. but those other drugs are pure evil. where i live there are so many tweekers it is sad. and all the tweekers have kids and the kids suffer for it. i would have to assume if speed was legal, more people would try it. and if more people try it, there will be more tweekers. so even more kids will suffer.
Weed is harmless when compared to the others in the category it is in, but let's not get carried away with pretending it's benign. Weed most certainly is harmful; it just doesn't have the fear/potential of instant ruination attached to it that the others do.
Smoking anything is harmful, but THC is absolutely benign. If people ate it or ingested concentrates ( hash, hash oil, budder), what little "harm" comes from it could be greatly curtailed.
MegaBeth wrote:weed should be legal. but the more serious drugs like cocaine, speed, heroin, should never be. weed is really harmless. but those other drugs are pure evil. where i live there are so many tweekers it is sad. and all the tweekers have kids and the kids suffer for it. i would have to assume if speed was legal, more people would try it. and if more people try it, there will be more tweekers. so even more kids will suffer.
Weed is harmless when compared to the others in the category it is in, but let's not get carried away with pretending it's benign. Weed most certainly is harmful; it just doesn't have the fear/potential of instant ruination attached to it that the others do.
Smoking anything is harmful, but THC is absolutely benign. If people ate it or ingested concentrates ( hash, hash oil, budder), what little "harm" comes from it could be greatly curtailed.
