[Wally_Sconce]

kenmore kenmore:

Actually there is a theory that legalizing drugs in general will halt the gang wars... not sure, but there was quite a debate on CBC this morning.. a prof at Harvard supports legalization..

I dont think society is ready to legalize heroine and met

[TattoodGirl]

RUEZ RUEZ:

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

I would say most people who drink end up being losers...would rather be around a toker than a drinker anyday.

I love you Mary Jane

Most people?So it's ok to judge people that drink but not pot heads?

I didnt say that did I...nope.

[Wally_Sconce]

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

RUEZ RUEZ:

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

I would say most people who drink end up being losers...would rather be around a toker than a drinker anyday.

I love you Mary Jane

Most people?So it's ok to judge people that drink but not pot heads?

I didnt say that did I...nope.

TattoodGirl, I must have read your post too fast becuase originally I thought you wrote "I would say that most people who end up being losers...would rather be around a toker than a drinker anyday."

[TattoodGirl]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

TattoodGirl, I must have read your post too fast becuase originally I thought you wrote "I would say that most people who end up being losers...would rather be around a toker than a drinker anyday."

No you are just reading through beer goggles

[kenmore]

Legalization doesn't necessarily mean taxation.. From what I heard on the program this morning they think if this stuff was legal it would do away with the gang control over it... its their theory.. I doubt it would ..many prescribed drugs are sold on the street.. valproic acid is being liquified and snorted.. and of course the big V goes for $60 a pill in Montreal.. so its debatable

[sandorski]

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

romanP romanP:

I don't plan to legalise marijuana in the United States. I don't even live there, nevermind having influence over their drug policies. I hope Barack Obama will take steps toward legalising, as he seems keen to do. Most states recognise that keeping weed illegal does more harm than good and wastes a lot of taxpayer money that could be better spent on looking for real criminals instead of manufactured ones.

please allow me to restate my point, because i fear that your last comment has strayed off topic.

I beleive that there was a general theme - maybe you support i - that legalizing marijuana will illiminate the criminal element
in Canada.

And, my response still remains that legalizing it in canada only will NOT acomplish that.

Why? because our criminal producers are exporting to another illegal market(ie USA). Adding legalized producers to Canada will not disrupt the ciminal business to the USA. theerefore the criminal producers will not be muscled out of business.

Furthermore, they aren't coming back with money exclusively,so there is limited merit to the idea that the Canadian government could tax or legitimize the revenue stream. the crinals are coming back with harder drugs and illegal firearms. Both of which Canada does not want, and does not want to legitimize.

Somewhat true. Part of the Revenue stream would be Taxed. It would still affect Organized Crime though, just not nearly as much if the US also got off their asses and Legalized as well.

[Lemmy]

[v

[Wally_Sconce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Aging_Redneck Aging_Redneck:

Actually, I didn't ask any question at all.

But, lets pretend that I did for conversation sake...

...If I was to ask a "leading question" then look for general approval, then I think that is distinctly different than asking a "leading question" then extract detailed conclusions from detailed answers.

You didn't ask a question, per se, but you were trying to gather information from peoples' reactions to a leading statement. Same thing; let's not play semantics. If you think you're gonna learn anything about, let's say, peoples' views on racism, it's likely not going to help your research cause by beginning the process with a statement like "Black people are ignorant criminals". Your logic was equally flawed and research methods equally useless.

I wonder if you can come up with an analogy that is much closer to what I wrote?

To me, there are 2 components to my statement:

1 - "The real reasons people don't smoke dope is because"
To mean, this changes the focus to the root reason why someone is doing something.

and

2 - "potheads are losers"
this is the root reason. it may be wrong, or prejudice, but in the context of my statement it is the root reason.

[Sapio]

romanP romanP:

Sapio Sapio:

Robair Robair:

generate income from taxing the stuff.

There's the problem, tax, I could never support it if its taxed. It would just become an change for the government to take our money and get more involved in people lives.

So you think that taxes are more invasive than being raided by police? Very interesting. Please explain more.

I believe both are invasive, but I can not support any new taxes. We are way way way over taxed as is.

[Robair]

Sapio Sapio:

Robair Robair:

generate income from taxing the stuff.

There's the problem, tax, I could never support it if its taxed.

It would be win win for me. I don't smoke the stuff so I wouldn't be paying any tax on it. And right now my hard earned tax dollars go to trying to police it. It would certainly save me money overall.

[RUEZ]

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

RUEZ RUEZ:

TattoodGirl TattoodGirl:

I would say most people who drink end up being losers...would rather be around a toker than a drinker anyday.

I love you Mary Jane

Most people?So it's ok to judge people that drink but not pot heads?

I didnt say that did I...nope.

You just did it. You just judged "most drinkers". You just called them losers.

[coaster_dot]

I think some people who are drinkers and some people who are smokers can become losers...not everyone though. Although I have seen more drinkers who became loser then smokers.

But it does seem kind of harsh to say "most" drinkers are losers.

Honestly I do both. And people tell me how I'm going down a bad path and how I wont be successful and everything. Well I don't see the problem with having a beer once in a while and drinking on a Friday night. And smoking with friends after school or work to calm down.

When school and work is done...what else is there to do?

[Sapio]

Robair Robair:

Sapio Sapio:

Robair Robair:

generate income from taxing the stuff.

There's the problem, tax, I could never support it if its taxed.

It would be win win for me. I don't smoke the stuff so I wouldn't be paying any tax on it. And right now my hard earned tax dollars go to trying to police it. It would certainly save me money overall.

Same for me, but on principle I can not support new taxes.

[Robair]

Sapio Sapio:

Robair Robair:

Same for me, but on principle I can not support new taxes.

It would reduce the tax burdon. You no longer have to try and enforce the prohibition.

[Lemmy]

Robair Robair:

Sapio Sapio:

Robair Robair:

Same for me, but on principle I can not support new taxes.

It would reduce the tax burdon. You no longer have to try and enforce the prohibition.

And, furthermore, the consumer would sure pay less, per ounce, under a government excise tax scheme than we currently pay to buy the good illegally. I would rather pay $100 per ounce with half of that going to the government than $150 per ounce going all to the Hell's Angels.