# The disastrous "war on drugs"



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Drug War Delirium*



> ...one issue continues to galvanize widespread support: the drug war. It seems preposterous in the face of increased levels of violence, political corruption and profiteering associated with the illicit drug trade and the official mobilizations to combat it, that the U.S. government—and its mouthpieces in the media—would celebrate drug war “successes.” But this phenomenon does place the propaganda value of the so-called war on drugs on prominent display.


(NACLA)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, it has been an unmitigated disaster.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

MacFury's account has been hacked.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

No, he's always been consistent in that (sensible, IMHO) position.

Just because we disagree about some things does not mean we have to disagree about all things.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

There is no real war on drugs. Instead they pass it off as tough when at best it is pablum. If there was a real war on drug use, there would be death to cartel members, life for dealing, 25 years for using and 10 years for possession. Now that would be war on drugs. There is no need for anyone to use drugs other than those prescribed to cure illness. So called recreational drug users are just that, users and should be treated as such.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I guess you haven't been stateside where they jail them 25 years for possession.

And as far I see, the DEA has some pretty serious weaponry. I bet if they could justify it further, they'd love an even bigger increase in budget for more.

Won't do a damn thing though.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> There is no real war on drugs. Instead they pass it off as tough when at best it is pablum. If there was a real war on drug use, there would be death to cartel members, life for dealing, 25 years for using and 10 years for possession. Now that would be war on drugs. There is no need for anyone to use drugs other than those prescribed to cure illness. So called recreational drug users are just that, users and should be treated as such.


There is no need for alcohol…*and yet there it is readily available for purchase at your local outlet.

Hooray for hypocrisy!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I guess such reaction is not an unexpected result if anyone is a recreational marijuana or cocaine user, which I am not. A couple of beers, sure. A couple of joints, no way now, in the past or in the future. In spite of people squealing, one can live an unprescribed drug free life, try it some time and see.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Not this again.

Ahh, well. Such is the way humans interact, I suppose. I might as well wade into the cesspit myself!

The war on drugs has indeed been an unmitigated disaster. It will never be won with the mighty arm of the law - not as long as the sums of money involved are enough to bribe your way through any difficulties. The black market in this stuff is far too powerful to allow itself to be snuffed out by mere politicians, cops and prosectors. The war on drugs, as it's been playing out in the states, has always been for appearances. It's pure theatre for the masses.

Alcohol was once illegal too... it was the pernicious drink, and society would face wrack and ruin should the vile stuff be allowed to flow freely, for public consumption! I think your logic is tenuous here, Sinc. I think I know why you sticks to your guns here, but in a larger, less purely personal sphere, I just don't see how it makes a lick of sense.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> There is no real war on drugs. Instead they pass it off as tough when at best it is pablum. If there was a real war on drug use, there would be death to cartel members, life for dealing, 25 years for using and 10 years for possession. Now that would be war on drugs. There is no need for anyone to use drugs other than those prescribed to cure illness. So called recreational drug users are just that, users and should be treated as such.


No nipping to the local for any more pints then?


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

SINC said:


> A couple of beers, sure. A couple of joints, no way.


Please explain to me the difference. Why should marijuana not be treated exactly the same?

And please don't start in about it being a gateway drug. The number of people who go on to ruin their lives and the lives of others due to alcohol abuse far outweighs the number of people who get into coke and heroin and the like solely because they started with weed and wanted a bigger high or whatever people think happens.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

okcomputer said:


> Please explain to me the difference. Why should marijuana not be treated exactly the same?
> 
> And please don't start in about it being a gateway drug. The number of people who go on to ruin their lives and the lives of others due to alcohol abuse far outweighs the number of people who get into coke and heroin and the like solely because they started with weed and wanted a bigger high or whatever people think happens.


OK, I won't. If you won't admit the truth that one mild drug leads to another stronger high, you are mistaken IMHO.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> No nipping to the local for any more pints then?


Of course, like I said a couple of pints are fine, but I draw the line at street drugs. One is legal, the other not. Both can be abused without doubt, but one fosters criminal activity in distribution and dealing and the other does not.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

deleted


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> I guess such reaction is not an unexpected result if one is a recreational marijuana or cocaine user, which I am not. A couple of beers, sure. A couple of joints, no way now, in the past or in the future. In spite of your squealing, one can live an unprescribed drug free life, try it some time and see.


Are you say I use illegal drugs?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> It only adds to the joke that is this 'war' that the toll in human misery caused by marijuana, cocaine and heroine is relatively insignificant when compared to the horendous misery, carnage and abuse that is related to alcohol.


That is most likely because folks don't call the cops when a drug abuser goes nuts for fear of having them arrested for far more than assault. Been there, done that, and it ain't pretty. Ever seen a 30 something son throw a boom box at his Mom and with a near miss, drive it six inches into a wall in a cocaine fuelled fury? I have.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> OK, I won't. If you won't admit the truth that one mild drug leads to another stronger high, you are mistaken IMHO.


Alcohol _is_ a drug -- a depressant -- and one that is well know to lead people to another stronger high and if you think it's safer than "street" drugs you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Alcohol _is_ a drug -- a depressant -- and one that is well know to lead people to another stronger high and if you think it's safer than "street" drugs you are sadly mistaken.


Well then, people can have fun sucking up unknown source street stuff with no idea where it was made or how strong it really is. I choose not to, thanks anyway. I know where my brew was made and what's it in. They print it on the bottle now you know.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> One is legal, the other not. Both can be abused without doubt, but one fosters criminal activity in distribution and dealing and the other does not.


Sorry, but I call shenanigans on that cowpile. Alcohol most certainly fosters criminal activity, as well as illegal distribution. Surely you can't be _that_ naive.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> OK, I won't. If you won't admit the truth that one mild drug leads to another stronger high, you are mistaken IMHO.


Alcohol has often been the first "drug of choice" for a great many addicts.

Just ask anyone in AA or NA.

In this subject, I don't believe making them illegal makes any difference whatsoever. All it does, it put obscene amounts of money in the pockets of criminals. (and many who have a vested interest in keeping it illegal)

It also fleeces the tax payer of obscene amounts of money.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Well then, have fun sucking up unknown source street stuff with no idea where it was made or how strong it really is. Carry on. I choose not to, thanks anyway.


Dodging my first question? C'mon, at least have the testicular fortitude rather than make thinly veiled insinuations.

Man up.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Sorry, but I call shenanigans on that cowpile. Alcohol most certainly fosters criminal activity, as well as illegal distribution. Surely you can't be _that_ naive.


No, I'm not. Alcohol is strictly controlled and legally distributed in every province and since outlets to buy it are now open seven days a week until late at night in every province, you argument leaks a bit.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Dodging my first question? C'mon, at least have the testicular fortitude rather than make thinly veiled insinuations.
> 
> Man up.


If sucking some unknown crap up their nose from an unknown country is people's pick, go for it. I just hope they don't get caught. It's not my way of "manning up".


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> That is most likely because folks don't call the cops when a drug abuser goes nuts for fear of having them arrested for far more than assault. Been there, done that, and it ain't pretty. Ever seen a 30 something son throw a boom box at his Mom and with a near miss, drive it six inches into a wall in a cocaine fuelled fury? I have.


I've also seen someone get run over by a drunk driver. And that's one instance. Doing what I do having seen the number of drunks, I have seen far more carnage by alcohol than any drug by a mile. And I seen both.

It ain't pretty.

It's time to face the truth. The war on drugs, is a complete, and utter failure. And no amount of more money will make it any less a failure. It's been proven, over, and over, and over again.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> No, I'm not. alcohol is strictly controlled and legally distributed in every province and since outlets to buy it are now open seven days a week until late at night in every province, you argument leaks a bit.


Perhaps you've led a sheltered life, but it's well known that bootlegging still exists today, although rather than transporting booze to dry country USA, it's in the form of selling alcohol out of private homes.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> If sucking some unknown crap up your nose from an unknown country is your pick, go for it. Just hope you don't get caught. If that's your way of "manning up", God help you.


What a pathetic little man you are. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Perhaps you've led a sheltered life, but it's well known that bootlegging still exists today, although rather than transporting booze to dry country USA, it's in the form of selling alcohol out of private homes.


Haven't read or heard of bootlegging in 20 years. Anywhere, except in legislated dry areas of the northern territories. When liquor stores open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 2:00 a.m. there is hardly a need for such activities.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

how did this go from an article stating the obvious, to accusing people of drug use they don't even know?

Funny positions people take.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> What a pathetic little man you are. :lmao:


Not nearly as pathetic as people those who snort for recreation.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> how did this go from an article stating the obvious, to accusing people of drug use they don't even know?
> 
> Funny positions people take.


I accused no one, I simply stated if that is anyone's choice, it comes with some baggage.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

groovetube said:


> how did this go from an article stating the obvious, to accusing people of drug use they don't even know?
> 
> Funny positions people take.


Clearly. He needs to ween himself from the bottle. :baby:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not nearly as pathetic as one who snorts or sucks for recreation.



oh lord love a duck I can't this forum has rules. 

such material to work with.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Clearly. He needs to ween himself from the bottle. :baby:


I just happen to not need weening of any kind. I have lived life without consuming unprescribed street drugs and done so without any loss of the real highs and lows of life. More people ought to try it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm playing that Peter Tosh song right now.

Just cause.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> I just happen to not need weening of any kind. I have lived life without consuming unprescribed street drugs and done so without any loss of the real highs and lows of life. More people ought to try it.


More insinuations.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> More insinuations.


Learn the meaning of the word. There were none in that post, just some friendly advice for those who may be using.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Learn the meaning of the word. There were none in that post, just some friendly advice for those who may be using.


SINC, you and I both know there is absolutely nothing friendly about your posts. The funny part is if the roles were reversed, you'd be running to ehMax demanding an apology.

Squeal, indeed.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> SINC, you and I both know there is absolutely nothing friendly about your posts.


Well, you got that right. I have no use for anyone who uses street drugs period. I make no accusations as to who may or may not be users, but my instincts tell me that those who support drug legalization are very likely users.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Well, you got that right. I have no use for anyone who uses street drugs period. I make no accusations as to who may or may not be users, but my instincts tell me that those who support drug legalization are very likely users.


Of course you would think that. Just another example of how out of touch you really are with reality.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> Well, you got that right. I have no use for anyone who uses street drugs period. I make no accusations as to who may or may not be users, but my instincts tell me that those who support drug legalization are very likely users.


I'm not a user, but I support ending this silly war on social values and social problems. Hallucinogens, pot and cocaine should be legal. Drugs like Meth and Crack should remain illegal due to their high addictivity and toxicity.

The gateway argument for marijuana has no substance behind it anymore than coffee or sugar do.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Steve Jobs says dropping acid was one of the top two or three important experiences in his life. Imagine if society had incarcerated him for having done it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well, you got that right. I have no use for anyone who uses street drugs period. I make no accusations as to who may or may not be users, but my instincts tell me that those who support drug legalization are very likely users.


Total bullcrap. Total copout, and accusatory. It's sad that's the only way you know how to make a point in this thread. Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of using drugs. Manny is right, you'd be screaming to high heaven (oops) to the mayor for an apology.

Most people I know don't use, and fully support the ending of this sham called the war on drugs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Of course you would think that. Just another example of how out of touch you really are with reality.


What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without hallucinogens, I know because I did it and it's not that hard to say no to street drugs. The thing is, you have to be a man to do it. Sorry (insert name here), but your drug use ends our friendship, is a line I have spoken many times.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Steve Jobs says dropping acid was one of the top two or three important experiences in his life. Imagine if society had incarcerated him for having done it.


NO MACS??????


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without hallucinogens, I know because I did it and it's not that hard to say no to street drugs. The thing is, you have to be a man to do it. Sorry (insert name here), but your drug use ends our friendship, is a line I have spoken many times.


What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without alcohol, regardless if it's legal. Stop being a chicken $h!t with the lame personal attacks -- you don't need to accuse someone of using drugs because they disagree with you.

Are you _that_ insecure?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Wait a second guys, did you not hear that the war on drugs could have wiped out ALL macs?

Holy CRAP that was close.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without alcohol, regardless if it's legal. Stop being a chicken $h!t with the lame personal attacks -- you don't need to accuse someone of using drugs because they disagree with you.
> 
> Are you _that_ insecure?


Once again, I accused no specific person of using drugs, I made generalized opinions about those who do use drugs. Nor did I make any personal attacks. Don't try to make it something it is not.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Again--punish people for what they do while on drugs, but not for taking them. Neither alcohol or drug abuse should be accepted as an excuse for any crime. 

I have never used illegal drugs, but I support anyone's right to put any substance into their body-food, drugs or drink.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without hallucinogens, I know because I did it and it's not that hard to say no to street drugs. The thing is, you have to be a man to do it. Sorry (insert name here), but your drug use ends our friendship, is a line I have spoken many times.


Pretty small circle of friends if that is your standard. If Steve Jobs moved next door, you would say **** off?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without hallucinogens, I know because I did it and it's not that hard to say no to street drugs. The thing is, you have to be a man to do it. Sorry (insert name here), but your drug use ends our friendship, is a line I have spoken many times.


Not all street drugs are hallucinogenic.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

SINC said:


> What you can't seem to get your mind around is that one can live a full and fruitful life without hallucinogens, I know because I did it and it's not that hard to say no to street drugs. The thing is, you have to be a man to do it. Sorry (insert name here), but your drug use ends our friendship, is a line I have spoken many times.


Nobody is forcing you to try or take hallucinogens. It's a personal choice. But you shouldn't deny others from experiencing such a profound aspect of our humanity. 

If you haven't taken a strong dose of a hallucinogen before you die, then I think you have missed out on one of the most amazing experiences life has to offer. You can't help but look at the World and life differently afterwards. We all wonder about the mysteries of life and the Universe and these drugs can change how you view it all and result in a completely different perspective.

Go to youtube and watch some documentaries on ayahuasca. Start with 'ayahuasca dmt trip'

Can you still live a fruitful life by passing on it? Sure. One could say the same for other experiences like sex.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> *Drug War Delirium*
> 
> 
> 
> (NACLA)


The “War on Drugs” is too mild to adequately describe it anymore. 

The Mexican, American and Colombian governments have been officially waging, winning a few battles, but ever so gradually losing this war on drugs for decades. 

Where Columbia used to be the big player, thanks in part to US and Colombian government forces effectively dismantling the Columbian cartels, the Mexican based cartels were left to grow, filling the void. 

Probably more political opposition posturing than anything else, Former Mexican President Fox is now promoting the legalization of drugs as a way of ending the violence. Fox criticizes that way Felipe Calderon has been escalating the war and the violence by engaging the military to battle the cartels. Didn’t Fox use the military to fight the cartels while he was President? 

Ex-Mexican President: End Bloody Drug War Through Legalization | KPBS.org 

The drug cartels have now diversified, as many powerful businesses do, to deal in more than one commodity. Now, in addition to drugs, with the cartels’ vast revenues, networks, manpower, gun power, government contacts and mercenary skills, they also turn a nice profit doing human smuggling, carjacking, kidnapping, extortion, oil theft and diversion, arms smuggling (for their own use as well as others) prostitution and music and video pirating. Who knows what’s next. I’d guess controlling food supply lines.They are no longer drug cartels, they are transnational criminal organizations (TCO). 

Most of the violence happens _between_ these TCOs, trying to gain or maintain their territories, supply or distribution lines. Pity the poor innocents that get in the way.

Legalizing drugs won’t happen. The cartels likely do not want it legalized. If the drugs were legalized, or the rules for trafficking eased, the power struggle between the cartels would still wage on. It’s much bigger than street drugs now….it’s about control of the streets themselves, and any souls that live on them.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

for SINC :

3 of the 5 most addictive drugs are *legal*.
A Surprising Look at the Most Addictive Drugs in the World | Michael's House

Alcohol is the most dangerous drug :
Drug experts say alcohol worse than crack or heroin | Reuters


----------



## whatiwant (Feb 21, 2008)

macfury said:


> again--punish people for what they do while on drugs, but not for taking them. Neither alcohol or drug abuse should be accepted as an excuse for any crime.
> 
> I have never used illegal drugs, but i support anyone's right to put any substance into their body-food, drugs or drink.


+1


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*define "drug"*

"Drug" is a difficult to define word. Essentially all compounds cause physiological and psychological responses when they are added to our bloodstream (wether through the digestive system, the alveoli, diffusion across mucus membranes, or direct injection).

Many "drugs" are either exactly the same as, or very close chemical analogs of molecules our bodies make naturally (nitrous oxide is a naturally occurring signalling molecule in your body, and endorphins vs. opiates, for example).

Many other compounds with pharmacological effects are 'secondary metabolites', usually found in plants, that are generally selected for as anti-grazing compounds or other forms of predator evasion. The capsaicin found in hot peppers works by binding a calcium channel in a class of neurons who's function is to detect heat, so we perceive exposure to that compound as 'hot', which in turn triggers an endorphin rush. The pepper plants make seeds that can't be digested by birds, and birds lack the class of vanilloid receptors bound by capsaicin, so they don't get the burning sensation when they eat the fruit of these plants. But mammals, with their grinding teeth, do digest the seeds, so the plant protects the fruit from the mammals by packing it full of this irritant. Then along come humans, who are so perverse that we _like_ the burning sensation, so we eat the fruit anyway... but the story has a happy ending for the plant because humans are clever enough to cultivate the plants, so the plant's ability to synthesize capsaicin winds up being a reproductive win anyway.

But the point is, anyone who likes spicy food is clearly a recreational drug user. You don't need to consume this drug, but you choose to. Just like tetrahydrocannabinol, it's an anti grazing compound that messes with your nervous system, and while they both have demonstrable medicinal value, unless you're suffering from the diseases they've been found effective in treating, if you use either of them... *YOU'RE EVIL and you should be put in jail!* beejacon


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> NO MACS??????


Just iShanks.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

SINC said:


> . The thing is, you have to be a man to do it.


Listen, I get that you may have had some bad experiences with people taking drugs. And I'm sure that heavily informs your opinion on the matter. 

But saying you're a bigger man than others because they might have smoked a joint is just rude and ignorant. And douchey. 

You're stuck on the legality issue, but the facts are there - alcohol causes way more addiction, death, and the like than marijuana. So keep drinking those pints, but don't think you're a big man for it. 

And by that logic, someone who has never touched liquor would be the biggest manly man man man of them all. 

But honestly if that has anything to do with your definition of a man or your self-identity, I think it's just kind of sad.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

SINC said:


> Haven't read or heard of bootlegging in 20 years. Anywhere, except in legislated dry areas of the northern territories. When liquor stores open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 2:00 a.m. there is hardly a need for such activities.


Good point in favour of eliminating the war on drugs.

In the past the tight controls on the sales of Alcohol led to the proliferation of a black market sales of that drug.

With the greater availability by legal market means the black market has virtually been eliminated as you have noted. Perhaps this model may work for certain "safer" drugs where potency and quality could be certified.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

okcomputer said:


> But honestly if that has anything to do with your definition of a man or your self-identity, I think it's just kind of sad.


What's sad is people who use drugs that are illegal. One has to make a decision to leave them alone, but those who can't make that decision, well . . .


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Keep digging yourself in there, Sinc. I can still see you, way down there. How's the light, by the way?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well, it's pretty simple to figure this out. Sinc's attitude, is precisely what's wrong with the approach.

You just shake your head, and hope more people wake up to the sheer stupidity that people have been convinced of.

In my experience having dealt with drunks etc. night after night, I know one thing. If I met someone in an alley, I'd much rather they have smoked pot than drank. Hands down.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Keep digging yourself in there, Sinc. I can still see you, way down there. How's the light, by the way?


It's good lighting Max, unencumbered by drug fuelled illusions.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, you can look at the War on Drugs as a success in one light: The USA has been amazingly effective in exporting the "war" to countries of the south, who really can't afford to blow the billions of dollars that this war costs. But through military cooperation agreements, "development" funding, co-security operations and all that jazz, the USA has effectively used the War on Drugs to extend its military presence throughout Latin America... serving foreign policy needs (imperialism) with justification for huge military budget expenditures and ensuring that all those factories in the USA making weapons have a raison d'etre. 

Ultimately, drugs isn't much of a problem in the "War on Drugs". The machine just keeps being greased. And untold thousands of people are caught in the crosshairs. Don't even get me started on Mexico...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I don't want to participate in the dog-piling on SINC. The guy's entitled to his opinion.

That being said, I'm really struggling to see any sort of reason for it... I'm not trying to be sarcastic or derogatory here... I'm really trying to understand. So help me out, SINC, what's your reason for saying some drugs are okay and some are not? As far as I can tell, your whole argument is that some are legal and some are not. Does that mean that you'd agree that alcohol is a dangerous drug if it were made illegal again? Or that heroin would become safe if it were legal?

It seems to me that all drugs are potentially dangerous (you can kill yourself with aspirin), so it's up to adults to control themselves.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

The whole "just because it's illegal it must be bad" really makes little sense. So alcohol and cigarettes are legal recreational drugs but nothing else is? Strange.

But hey, sodomy was once illegal. Oral sex was once illegal. Marrying someone of a different race was once illegal. Alcohol was once illegal. Legality and illegality is no measure of morality.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

In case anyone has forgotten. Marijuana is a prescription drug now, in most places. So, we're not exactly talking about "illegal," but rather, shunned for street use?

Alcohol had it's time for prohibition, Marijuana is as well, but, I think pretty shortly, we'll be seeing that changing in our modern age. People are starting to realize that most of the drugs on the streets are actually less harmful than a lot of prescription medications. That's what happens with technology, humans get smarter and really start figuring things out instead of following myths and wives-tales. 

I'd take a joint over alcohol any day, but, I don't really do much of either. Moderation is the key here.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

P.S. I don't see doctors prescribing alcohol for the terminally ill or people suffering from chronic pain. Just an observation.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Yep. And when we finally legalize these drugs, there will be a temporary blip of abuse due to the few people that were actually inhibited by the law, followed by equilibration back to where we are now. With the difference being that we won't be spending bajillions on policing, prosecuting and imprisoning citizens, legitimate (tax-paying) businesses will be making money rather than criminals, and we'll have a bonanza of tax revenue.

I'm surprised the US didn't use this approach to it's debt crisis.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

bryanc said:


> That being said, I'm really struggling to see any sort of reason for it... I'm not trying to be sarcastic or derogatory here... I'm really trying to understand. So help me out, SINC, what's your reason for saying some drugs are okay and some are not


I know exactly why, and I'm willing to bet alcohol was a significant factor. But I'm sure he'd never admit to it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> I don't want to participate in the dog-piling on SINC. The guy's entitled to his opinion.
> 
> That being said, I'm really struggling to see any sort of reason for it... I'm not trying to be sarcastic or derogatory here... I'm really trying to understand. So help me out, SINC, what's your reason for saying some drugs are okay and some are not? As far as I can tell, your whole argument is that some are legal and some are not. Does that mean that you'd agree that alcohol is a dangerous drug if it were made illegal again? Or that heroin would become safe if it were legal?
> 
> It seems to me that all drugs are potentially dangerous (you can kill yourself with aspirin), so it's up to adults to control themselves.


bryanc, as you well know, any drug (including alcohol) can be abused if the user chooses to do so. Addiction is a terrible thing and drug fuelled rages with extreme violence caused by cocaine or other hard drugs are not a pretty sight. Granted nor is a wife abuser who is drunk. That noted, I draw the line at casual or so-called recreational use of illegal drugs like cocaine or heroin and no one will ever convince me that those who are currently using hard drugs almost certainly started on marijuana. When the thrill of repeated use was gone, they moved up a notch.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> I know exactly why, and I'm willing to bet alcohol was a significant factor. But I'm sure he'd never admit to it.


You have no idea why.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> no one will ever convince me that those who are currently using hard drugs almost certainly started on marijuana. When the thrill of repeated use was gone, they moved up a notch.


Actually, they almost certainly started on alcohol or cigarettes... no one will ever convince me otherwise.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> It's good lighting Max, unencumbered by drug fuelled illusions.


Oh, you've never worn beer goggles then? OK Sinc.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> bryanc, as you well know, any drug (including alcohol) can be abused if the user chooses to do so. Addiction is a terrible thing and drug fuelled rages with extreme violence caused by cocaine or other hard drugs are not a pretty sight. Granted nor is a wife abuser who is drunk. That noted, I draw the line at casual or so-called recreational use of illegal drugs like cocaine or heroin and no one will ever convince me* that those who are currently using hard drugs almost certainly started on marijuana.* When the thrill of repeated use was gone, they moved up a notch.


total BS.

try they started on alcohol.

almost every addict I've know pretty much has.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Actually, they almost certainly started on alcohol or cigarettes... no one will ever convince me otherwise.


I quit smoking 11 years ago now and I still enjoy my daily pint, but I made the decision back in the 60s to never cross the line into street drugs when first offered the opportunity. That was and still is a wise decision.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> You have no idea why.


I think I do.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Oh, you've never worn beer goggles then? OK Sinc.


Sure Max, that's right, but it was many years ago. Didn't we all as youngsters? High school Grad night comes to mind there.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

groovetube said:


> total BS.
> 
> try they started on alcohol.
> 
> almost every addict I've know pretty much has.


If it was indeed "total", that would mean no one ever in the history of mankind every did move from grass to hard stuff and you know as well as I do that it is your statement that is total BS because it surely has happened.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> I quit smoking 11 years ago now and I still enjoy my daily pint, but I made the decision back in the 60s to never cross the line into street drugs when first offered the opportunity. That was and still is a wise decision.


And likewise, many people similarly make the decision never to cross from marijuana to other drugs.

If marijuana is a gateway drug, so are alcohol and cigarettes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I can't think of anyone I know who moved straight to marijuana without landing on cigarettes first.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I can... several people, in fact. I can recall people who would piously put me down for smoking ciggies - while they're puffing on a big fat doobie.

People are funny that way. 

I've also met many a pothead whose anti-alcohol stance borders on sanctimonious hectoring. Takes all kinds.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> I can... several people, in fact. I can recall people who would piously put me down for smoking ciggies - while they're puffing on a big fat doobie.


Well, ya know, tobacco has a distinctive smell...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And dope doesn't? Man, they are both pungent but I always found dope to have a sickly-sweet, cloying odour. Tobacco is merely gross. Dope permeates.

But I guess it's horses for courses.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

A joke, Max. I was trying to be funny.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> If it was indeed "total", that would mean no one ever in the history of mankind every did move from grass to hard stuff and you know as well as I do that it is your statement that is total BS because it surely has happened.


Sinc. You're drowning in quicksand here.

You have made the announcement that the 'soft drugs' are what leads to the hard. And this, is your reason for why it should be illegal. Since, we all know, making it illegal prevents anyone from doing that...

That, is what I call total BS on. It's the notion, that somehow the soft drugs is the culprit, and not cigarettes and alcohol, which for some strange reason, is legal.

This is so basic, so simple. And the evidence of the sheer stupidity and failure of the war on drugs, is clear to most living breathing souls.

If they're honest.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF, I didn't catch the humour. No worries. It's the intertubez.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> *I think I do*.


I have not "chimed" in because I was hoping this thread would die an early death, but it keeps on going...

MPD do you really... I have had this debate before a few years ago with SINC and when I heard his story I backed off. I don't agree with his view but I can appreciate it as he lost his son to drugs... If that is the reason why you think SINC holds the opinion he does with regards to drug use then you should back away as well because you can't understand where he is coming from until you have walked in his shoes.

Your and gt's personal attacks on him are not called for, he is entrenched, you are entrenched, no one is going to change either person's view/opinion so time to move on and SINC that includes you. 

You have made your strong opinions very well known, right down to writing off friends if they have used any "street" drugs which is pretty harsh IMO and while I don't even come close to agreeing with that attitude you are entitled to it, but this exchange is not going anywhere so IMO, time to let it go and move on. My 2 cents.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

screature said:


> Your and gt's personal attacks on him are not called for,* he is entrenched, you are entrenched, no one is going to change either person's view/opinion* so time to move on and SINC that includes you.


This can be said for the majority of threads, posts and posters here. We talk at each other. It's the nature of the beast. This thread, that thread, it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yep - what mrjimmy sed, eh.

But of the record - I just want to add that I yam always rite.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

mrjimmy said:


> This can be said for the majority of threads, posts and posters here. We talk at each other. It's the nature of the beast. This thread, that thread, it really doesn't matter.


It's often true but not always and that alone is not reason enough to continue or promote the behaviour...

Sometimes I get chastised for being a forum cop/thread police/Sheriff etc... So be it, I really don't care... I don't think "policing" ourselves is a bad thing... I have been "policed" for my personal friends in the past and while at the time it got my back up, given the time for a second thought I could more readily see where they were coming from... sometimes I continued to disagree and sometimes I completely saw where they were coming from by backing off.

The interweb doesn't lend itself to backing off and time for second thought... Instant messaging don't ya know... get in there before someone else does sorta mentality, so I understand the "twitch" mentality as I often fall victim to it myself.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

i don't think anyone is suggesting that SINC not have his opinion, or that he should be banned for it. they are simply voicing their thoughts on where they disagree.

it's great that SINC doesn't do drugs, he's probably much healthier for it, but it's important to point out that while he has every right to take that stance many people would take great offence at anyone trying to force other free people the right to make their own choice.

The one positive of this thread is that we can see that most people have come around and point out the hypocrisy of our society legalizing and profiting from certain drugs, but criminalizing others. I think the reactions in this thread show that by in decade or two the country will finally come around to how most of the population feels. Marijuana was nearly decriminalized, if not for the stupidity of Harper & Co.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

deleted


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> MPD do you really... I have had this debate before a few years ago with SINC and when I heard his story I backed off. I don't agree with his view but I can appreciate it as he lost his son to drugs... If that is the reason why you think SINC holds the opinion he does with regards to drug use then you should back away as well because you can't understand where he is coming from until you have walked in his shoes.


Yes, I do. (You're not the only one who's crossed words with SINC on this matter) And it's why I never outright said… out of respect, despite his sniping and insistence that I allegedly had no clue. And neither of you know who I am and you certainly aren't in the position to presume to know, what path I've traveled in life. 

However…



> Your and gt's personal attacks on him are not called for…


This is where _you're_ out of line. SINC has done nothing but make little childish snipes and jabs throughout this thread, feigning innocence while slinging $h!t and insinuating that I'm a drug addict because of my opinion. That has _nothing_ to do with his personal experience and how it relates to his son -- there's absolutely no f'ing excuse.

If you think I'm going to sit and let him talk crap to me like a little bitch, you have another thing coming. And if I get booted because of it, so be it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> *Yes, I do.* (You're not the only one who's crossed words with SINC on this matter) And it's why I never outright said… out of respect, despite his sniping and insistence that I allegedly had no clue. And neither of you know who I am and you certainly aren't in the position to presume to know, what path I've traveled in life.
> 
> However…
> 
> ...


Well then you should know enough to back away... It is pointless. I don't know who you are or ever suggested anything of the kind... you should calm down.

If you think I am out of line so be it, your posts speak for themselves, you have done nothing other than exchange personal barbs with SINC. Personally IMO I don't see any evidence where SINC was insinuating that you're a drug addict because of your opinion... maybe that is something personal between the two of you.. I don't know but that wasn't my take on it.

As for childishness, coming from one who has just been a witness for the most part, you are no saint in that regard.

As for the rest of your post... like I said I think you may want to step away and calm down.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Whatever. I'm out. C-ya.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Waitasec... is this the pointless argument thread?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Waitasec... is this the pointless argument thread?


Seems so doesn't it... 

Got a haiku up your sleeve Max... I think this thread is past due for one...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm living a haiku-free life now, pal. I kicked. That's right, I'm clean edge now! If I can do it, anyone can.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> I'm living a haiku-free life now, pal. I kicked. That's right, I'm clean edge now! If I can do it, anyone can.


Really? Congrats!

So did you go to haiku rehab or did you do it all on your own... Any withdrawal symptoms? Did you ween yourself off by doing free verse or other less addictive forms of poetry first?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> Waitasec... is this the pointless argument thread?


Zing!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just read this entire thread and wanted to add my 2¢. 

SINC, I get why Manny P is very upset. Whether deliberate or not (I *strongly* believe it was deliberate), multiple posts of yours came off as insinuating / acusing that Manny P did drugs because of his viewpoint. As an example, this post which was in response write after Manny's post:



SINC said:


> I guess such reaction is not an unexpected result if one is a recreational marijuana or cocaine user, which I am not. A couple of beers, sure. A couple of joints, no way now, in the past or in the future.* In spite of your squealing, one can live an unprescribed drug free life, try it some time and see*.


Another post directly quoting Manny:



SINC said:


> Well then, *have fun sucking up unknown source street stuff with no idea where it was made or how strong it really is. Carry on.* I choose not to, thanks anyway. I know where my brew was made and what's it in. They print it on the bottle now you know.


Personally, I think you should just admit it was intentional and issue an apology.

If someone strongly implied that you supported alcoholism or drunk driving because of your viewpoint for example, I'd request the same thing to them. 

I have no problem with you have a _very_ strong viewpoint on the topic, that may or may not be effected by your personal experiences. I understand and empathize. You're free to state those strong opinions, and others are free to state theirs. But I believe you crossed the line by your targeted comments to Manny, that if someone has opinion opposite of yours, they must be drug users.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'm going to let this thread cool down for a bit and close it for now. I will re-open it again tomorrow in hopes that parties involve take a breather.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I've re-opened this thread.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

ehMax said:


> Personally, I think you should just admit it was intentional and issue an apology.
> 
> If someone strongly implied that you supported alcoholism or drunk driving because of your viewpoint for example, I'd request the same thing to them.


I have edited all my posts to make it clear that I in no way meant to insinuate Manny was a drug user. screature understood that much, you and Manny didn't.

Any rational person has to know that I could not possibly make a statement like that because I don't know Manny personally, nor anything about his lifestyle. 

I apologize for not being clear enough in my posts, which resulted in some people not understanding my real intent.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

.


----------



## fellfromtree (May 18, 2005)

So many places to post this- You Can't Make This Up, Fear Monger Thread, any of the Neo Con threads... but since SINC seems to looking for a reason...

Cop spends weeks to trick an 18-year-old into possession and sale of a gram of pot - Boing Boing


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fellfromtree said:


> So many places to post this- You Can't Make This Up, Fear Monger Thread, any of the Neo Con threads... but since SINC seems to looking for a reason...
> 
> Cop spends weeks to trick an 18-year-old into possession and sale of a gram of pot - Boing Boing


Hmmm given the similarities to the Mounties Mayorthorpe aftermath fiasco, it seems entirely possible this is how King Harpo plans to fill all those new jails.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fellfromtree said:


> So many places to post this- You Can't Make This Up, Fear Monger Thread, any of the Neo Con threads... but since SINC seems to looking for a reason...
> 
> Cop spends weeks to trick an 18-year-old into possession and sale of a gram of pot - Boing Boing


No reason, it was not intended to be a post in that thread. Sorry.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> Hmmm given the similarities to the Mounties Mayorthorpe aftermath fiasco, it seems entirely possible this is how King Harpo plans to fill all those new jails.


yeah it's very important we spend millions and millions of dollars on goin and gittin them 18 year olds selling a dime bag.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> yeah it's very important we spend millions and millions of dollars on goin and gittin them 18 year olds selling a dime bag.


 This incident occurred in the US, until it happens in Canada it is just the spreading of so much more FUD.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you don't think it happens in Canada? I've personally known several cases. It's well known.

It absolutely happens in Canada and has for years.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> you don't think it happens in Canada? I've personally known several cases. It's well known.
> 
> It absolutely happens in Canada and has for years.


I know people have been entrapped, but I believe the level of effort the agents went through
in that particular U.S. case seemed unusual.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I recall in late high school, cops putting a lot of effort into nailing a handful of grade 12s who sold dimes to their buddies, while the real dealers were never touched.

I know this was a common thing throughout other high schools as well.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> you don't think it happens in Canada? I've personally known several cases. It's well known.
> 
> It absolutely happens in Canada and has for years.


I have never seen or it being reported the kind of situation as that described in the article occurring in Canada... care to back up your statement with a link to a report in Canada where teenagers were entrapped and effectively coerced by police into trafficking where the teens previously had no involvement with drugs?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I recall in late high school, cops putting a lot of effort into nailing a handful of grade 12s who sold dimes to their buddies, while the real dealers were never touched.
> 
> I know this was a common thing throughout other high schools as well.


Not the same thing as occurred in Florida at all. I do however agree that such sweeps by the police are a waste of time and money.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I didn't say, the incidents were identical. I was merely talking about the whole issue of going after teenagers like this in this fashion.

You know what nevermind I'm not getting into a useless squabble here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I didn't say, the incidents were identical. *I was merely talking about the whole issue of going after teenagers like this in this fashion.*
> 
> You know what nevermind I'm not getting into a useless squabble here.


Fair enough and on that we can agree...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Portugal: Number of Drug Addicts Halved a Decade After Drug Decriminalization*



> On July 1, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge.
> 
> Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.
> 
> Over a decade has passed since Portugal changed its philosophy from labeling drug users as criminals to labeling them as people affected by a disease. This time lapse has allowed statistics to develop and in time, has made Portugal an example to follow.





> possession and use is moved out of criminal courts and into a special court where each offender’s unique situation is judged by legal experts, psychologists, and social workers. Treatment and further action is decided in these courts, where addicts and drug use is treated as a public health service rather than referring it to the justice system (like the US)





> The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts





> One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates


(Cryptogon)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's not a disease, and people need to be held accountable for every illegal act they commit while on drugs. However, I believe they should be decriminalized--as well as all prescription drugs.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Once again, you astound me with your position on an issue. _Gobsmacked_ is a word that appears due for a comeback...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Someone's decision to shoot up is nor more a disease than choosing to smoke a cigarette, or eat an apple fritter. Would be nice if people who suffer from actual diseases, such as cancer, could merely choose to avoid it.

I believe people should be free to make choices regarding drug use--but not coddled to believe they are suffering from a disease while they make the choice to use drugs.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> It's not a disease, and people need to be held accountable for every illegal act they commit while on drugs. However, I believe they should be decriminalized--as well as all prescription drugs.


Yes and No. While the first few times are usually voluntary, after that the user seldom has control. Especially with drugs such as Crystal Meth or Crack Cocaine.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Yes and No. While the first few times are usually voluntary, after that the user seldom has control. Especially with drugs such as Crystal Meth or Crack Cocaine.


At which point they're addicted to the drug--not suffering from a disease.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Someone needs to do a little more learning on this subject.

The disease model has been accepted for some time now, and treatments based on this has had great success. However,before the fear card starts getting played on this, or left turns for no credible reason are tossed out, I do think that someone should be held accountable for their actions while high, just as one is held accountable for the people they kill or injure while drunk driving. 

Interesting CM, yet more evidence that criminalization is a complete and utter failure, not to mention a huge drain on tax payers dollars. If only Harper could figure this out.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Interesting CM, yet more evidence that criminalization is a complete and utter failure, not to mention a huge drain on tax payers dollars. If only Harper could figure this out.


Harper's anti-science, anti-statistics, anti-data stance will continue to harm Canadians.

The man is just too stupid and fundamental to get it!!!!!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rgray said:


> Harper's anti-science, anti-statistics, anti-data stance will continue to harm Canadians.
> 
> The man is just too stupid and fundamental to get it!!!!!


It is too bad that Harper and crew have to let ideology over reason win. 

Many people will be harmed with this position.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Harper's anti-science, anti-statistics, anti-data stance will continue to harm Canadians.
> 
> The man is just too stupid and fundamental to get it!!!!!


You're blaming the war on drugs on Harper?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You're blaming the war on drugs on Harper?


But of course. Isn't he also responsible for terrorism, obesity, domestic violence, and head lice?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

...and once again the usual suspects derail a thread by talking about everything *except* the point of the original post, i.e., how a state should address the drug problem in its society.

Seriously, you guys are so damn predictable.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

It does force one to wonder, if perhaps the puppet masters are among those raking in the dough of the illegal drug trade. Obviously legalization would put a huge crimp in their pockets, giving every reason for said puppet masters to pressure whatever government is in power to maintain the status quo.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> ...and once again the usual suspects derail a thread by talking about everything *except* the point of the original post, i.e., how a state should address the drug problem in its society.


Are you referring to rgray's post, which introduced partisan politics into the argument:



> Harper's anti-science, anti-statistics, anti-data stance will continue to harm Canadians.


If so, have the courage to address him directly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> ...and once again the usual suspects derail a thread by talking about everything *except* the point of the original post, i.e., how a state should address the drug problem in its society.
> 
> Seriously, you guys are so damn predictable.


Uhmm, seriously CM??!! Look at who started the derailment... rgray!!! So go pi** up a rope why don't you...  tptptptp Talk about predictable... belly aching about anyone who dares go off the rails who isn't a socialist... if you are it is fair game.  

Also you will notice that both the "usual suspects" have already participated substantively in this thread. And since when does two posts around here constitute a "derailment"... get over it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> It does force one to wonder, if perhaps *the puppet masters are among those raking in the dough of the illegal drug trade.* Obviously legalization would put a huge crimp in their pockets, giving every reason for said puppet masters to pressure whatever government is in power to maintain the status quo.


Who exactly is it that you mean when you say "puppet masters"?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> ...and once again the usual suspects derail a thread by talking about everything *except* the point of the original post, i.e., how a state should address the drug problem in its society.
> 
> Seriously, you guys are so damn predictable.


It's too difficult to look at how the state is currently addressing it, and talking about it's effectiveness. Circular arguments ensue, mainly because it's too much reality to see the sheer ineffectiveness, and the colossal waste of tax payer's money it's been. Past governments are guilty as well. But I referenced our current one, one that has recommitted to this waste with more money.

As for the brouhaha here now, Who's on first, etc etc...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Who exactly is it that you mean when you say "puppet masters"?


You tell me. Since the Harpolites definitely did not write either C-11 or C-30, both of which were nearly identical to bills originally introduced by the Liberals, it is reasonably safe to conclude there is someone else pulling the strings.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> You're blaming the war on drugs on Harper?


I did not say any such thing.

Don't be ridiculous. He just continues the error. 

The years of the so-called war on drugs have resulted in cheaper, better quality and more plentiful drugs on the street and doesn't seem to have put a dent in the number of addicts.

And BTW drug addiction is classified as mental illnes according to DSM IV and V as endorsed by the AMA and CMA.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> And BTW drug addiction is classified as mental illnes according to DSM IV and V as endorsed by the AMA and CMA.


Um hmmm. I guess we all suffer from the mental illness of crack addiction--it's just a dormant gene unless we start firing up a crack pipe.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rgray said:


> I did not say any such thing.
> 
> Don't be ridiculous. *He just continues the error. *
> 
> ...


exactly. It isn't accurate to merely frame this as conservatives bad liberal good. None of them have been any good in this regard. However, currently Harper has reversed the trend towards relaxed laws and committed millions and millions. It isn't like the commu... er democrats () or any better either at solving things.

It just becomes another one of those CON! socialists!!! slugfests that solves nothing.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

groovetube said:


> exactly. It isn't accurate to merely frame this as conservatives bad liberal good. None of them have been any good in this regard. However, currently Harper has reversed the trend towards relaxed laws and committed millions and millions. It isn't like the commu... er democrats () or any better either at solving things.
> 
> It just becomes another one of those CON! socialists!!! slugfests that solves nothing.


I didn't say the libs were "good" either.........


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

rgray said:


> I didn't say the libs were "good" either.........


I didn't mean to imply you did. Just agreeing with you.

Somehow today I feel like I'm playing the game telephone on this forum


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> You tell me. Since the Harpolites definitely did not write either C-11 or C-30, both of which were nearly identical to bills originally introduced by the Liberals, it is reasonably safe to conclude there is someone else pulling the strings.


Just as I suspected, you have no answer.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_Gee, I really hate to resurrect this thread, but since most of the drug chat is going on in the American thread, I just want to offer you guys an alternative..._



(BoingBoing)


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but I think this is a movie that everyone should watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLTsXcm-N3U


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Here's the Lawless Hellscape Colorado Has Become Six Months After Legalizing Weed*



> In March alone, taxed and legal recreational marijuana sales generated nearly $19 million, up from $14 million in February. The state has garnered more than $10 million in taxes from retail sales in the first four months — money that will go to public schools and infrastructure, as well as for youth educational campaigns about substance use.
> 
> According to his latest budget proposal, Gov. John Hickenlooper expects a healthy $1 billion in marijuana sales over the next fiscal year. That's nearly $134 million in tax revenue. Sales from recreational shops are expected to hit $600 million, which is a more than 50% increase over what was originally expected.





> Marijuana-related arrests, which make up 50% of all drug-related crimes, have plummeted in Colorado, freeing up law enforcement to focus on other criminal activity. By removing marijuana penalties, the state is estimated to save somewhere between $12 million and $40 million, according to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.
> 
> According to government data, the Denver city- and county-wide murder rate has dropped 42.1% since recreational marijuana use was legalized in January. This is compared to the same period last year, a time frame encompassing Jan. 1 through May 31. Violent crime in general is down almost 2%, and major property crimes are down 11.5% compared to the same period in 2013.





> With the fall of prohibition, the marijuana industry has developed rapidly, generating thousands of new jobs. It is estimated there are currently about 10,000 people directly involved with the blossoming weed industry, with up to 2,000 people having gained employment in the past few months alone.





> The DEA is now asking the Food and Drug Administration to remove marijuana from its list of the most dangerous and harmful drugs. This could signal a radical shift in the way our government regulates and enforces weed. Marijuana advocates hail the decision as a necessary policy step towards eventual legalization, removing a critical roadblock that has constrained marijuana legalization on the local and federal levels.












(Mic.com)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm in favour of legalizing all drugs, but that analysis is a bit of an embarrassment. One could extrapolate from that data, for example, that: 
* marijuana users were responsible for 42% of murders and become violent and murder others when they are refused easy access to marijuana. 
* marijuana users are responsible for a significant number of robberies in the Denver area. 
* marijuana use is on a steep upswing following legalization, something we were told would never happen.

It's also rather disingenuous to for leftists to start cheering about the ability of pot to raise revenue and stimulate the economy. When that same argument is used for the oil sands, they immediately pull a sour face. What if I told you that legalizing crack and heroin would result in the creation of many jobs and raise government revenue?

It's too early to make any sort of rah-rah statement.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Legal pot drives up number of homeless in Denver  - NY Daily News

Unemployed potheads invade Denver!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yeah, there is a downside to every new lefty idea.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I'm in favour of legalizing all drugs, but that analysis is a bit of an embarrassment. One could extrapolate from that data, for example, that:
> * marijuana users were responsible for 42% of murders and become violent and murder others when they are refused easy access to marijuana.
> * marijuana users are responsible for a significant number of robberies in the Denver area.
> * marijuana use is on a steep upswing following legalization, something we were told would never happen.
> ...


Good post MacFury. :clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yeah, there is a downside to every new lefty idea.


As there is to every "righty" idea. 

The world is not a homogeneous place... Although almost every political party in the world seems to want to make it so.

Funny how that works...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks like those pot sales taxes in Colorado are a bust:

Recreational Pot Not Bringing In Tax Money That Was Expected Â« CBS Denver



> High hopes for tax money isn’t as expected as the state’s legal marijuana industry isn’t bringing in as much money as anticipated. In fact, tax revenue is way below expectations.
> 
> When voters approved recreational marijuana sales the state predicted it would pull in more than $33 million in new taxes in the first six months. The actual revenue came up more than $21 million short.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

So then, all the supporters of legalized pot who have been claiming for years such a move would result in huge tax revenues and take drug dealers off the streets were wrong? One is left to wonder what else they are wrong about.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Looks like those pot sales taxes in Colorado are a bust:
> 
> Recreational Pot Not Bringing In Tax Money That Was Expected Â« CBS Denver


Somebody's numbers are wonky. The item I cited on the previous page noted 19-million in March and 21-million in February.

The CBS Denver report you linked to cites no sources.

The item I posted links to this report (PDF), which states in part:

_According to the state’s department of revenue, the first four months of legal marijuana sales have resulted in $10.8 million in taxes.iv Governor Hickenlooper estimated sales in all marijuana stores will approach $1 billion for the 2014 fiscal year.

Retail store sales are estimated to account for more than $600 million of that, more than 50 percent higher than initially projected.v Though many industry advocates believe this estimate to be exaggerated, there will undoubtedly be increased tax revenues from retail marijuana sales. $40 million of the tax revenue raised through marijuana sales will be allocated to improving Colorado schools. 

The Colorado Department of Revenue estimates that approximately $1.9 million of this $40 million has been raised so far. Other tax revenue is proposed for youth and public education campaigns about marijuana.vi_​
So... who's numbers are right? *What's really going on in Colorado?* _Are the accountants inhaling?_ :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Almost all of the sales occurred during the first month--then people went back to their regular suppliers. Colorado, for its part, think the answer is increasing the supply to bring prices in line with street prices. However, the tax alone makes that impossible.



> “After the cost of producing each pound, I still have to pay a 15 percent excise tax, licensing fees, huge rent because landlords overcharge marijuana dispensaries, and when I pay federal income tax I can’t deduct like a regular business,” said Brian Ruden owner of Starbud, Altermeds and Tree of Wellness medical and recreational outlets in Denver, Louisville and Colorado Springs. “It ends up that I am selling an eighth (of an ounce) for $60 when the street price is about $25.”


http://rt.com/usa/184857-colorado-marijuana-sales-sept/

Department of Revenue:Colorado Marijuana Tax Data


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> *Almost all of the sales occurred during the first month*--then people went back to their regular suppliers. Colorado, for its part, think the answer is increasing the supply to bring prices in line with street prices. However, the tax alone makes that impossible.


You do realize that stating something as a fact doesn't make it a fact, right? (well, except when you control the airwaves and can pound it into the heads of people who don't bother to look at the data).

The link you yourself provided - to Denver's Marijuana tax data - indicates total sales in the first half of this year going from $2.5-million to $6.5-million. How is that "almost all of the sales occurred during the first month" ? 

Sales taxes by county went from about $2-million to $3-million per month over that period.

Retail sales tax revenues to local governments went from $210-thousand in January to $368-thousand in June (this is separate from state tax revenues on retail sales and medical marijuana sales).

Would you like to give it another go, spinmeister?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I was trying to make an educated guess as to why the figures you reported were so glowing, but the current results are so poor. 

Looking at the figures carefully, it seems that legal pot simply can't compete with illegal pot, so tax revenue is dismal. 



CubaMark said:


> You do realize that stating something as a fact doesn't make it a fact, right? (well, except when you control the airwaves and can pound it into the heads of people who don't bother to look at the data).
> 
> The link you yourself provided - to Denver's Marijuana tax data - indicates total sales in the first half of this year going from $2.5-million to $6.5-million. How is that "almost all of the sales occurred during the first month" ?
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I was trying to make an educated guess as to why the figures you reported were so glowing, but the current results are so poor.
> 
> Looking at the figures carefully, it seems that legal pot simply can't compete with illegal pot, so tax revenue is dismal.


You seem incapable of admitting that you are wrong. _Quelle sorprise!_ (sorry, I didn't do well in French class)

For the record: you stated that people stopped buying pot after the first month, and had gone back to their traditional (illegal, street) sources. The data sources _you provided _show the exact opposite of your statement.

Local / state government policies on tax distribution are another matter - but sales do not appear, from this data, to be hurting. I'm left wondering, though, why the Denver CBS report and government types quoted are saying the opposite (are those people 'in the know' or are they traditional opponents of marijuana legalization and thus are 'spinning' the data to meet their desired narrative?).


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yes, my guess was wrong. I was trying to reconcile the earlier report with what actually transpired. The data source was provided to show the total amount of tax collected, not to explain why tax revenue was so dismal or to prove my supposition.

The truth seems to be that a large number of users never wanted to buy legal "taxed" marijuana in the first place. Increased sales figures appear to be combined sales, incorporating both low-tax medical marijuana and high-tax recreational marijuana. Anecdotal evidence suggests that heavy users buy medical marijuana, where sales are strongest.

Either way, this seems to be a botched effort.



CubaMark said:


> You seem incapable of admitting that you are wrong. _Quelle sorprise!_ (sorry, I didn't do well in French class)
> 
> For the record: you stated that people stopped buying pot after the first month, and had gone back to their traditional (illegal, street) sources. The data sources _you provided _show the exact opposite of your statement.
> 
> Local / state government policies on tax distribution are another matter - but sales do not appear, from this data, to be hurting. I'm left wondering, though, why the Denver CBS report and government types quoted are saying the opposite (are those people 'in the know' or are they traditional opponents of marijuana legalization and thus are 'spinning' the data to meet their desired narrative?).


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> ... this seems to be a botched effort.


Yes, a* 1408.9% rise in sales *certainly denotes a massive failure


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

That sales figure is only a success if you believe that the purpose of the program was to increase drug use. 



CubaMark said:


> Yes, a* 1408.9% rise in sales *certainly denotes a massive failure


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I'd like to see some data on crime... one would expect that the ridiculous possession charges and related minor infractions are now a thing of the past, as are the associated costs in time, money and impact upon people's lives who would otherwise be processed through the legal system.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe, but promised tax revenue is dismally below target.



CubaMark said:


> I'd like to see some data on crime... one would expect that the ridiculous possession charges and related minor infractions are now a thing of the past, as are the associated costs in time, money and impact upon people's lives who would otherwise be processed through the legal system.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Maybe, but promised tax revenue is dismally below target.


And *if* there is indeed a lower-than-forecast tax revenue, but that is more than offset by savings in law enforcement / court system expenditures, can we not take that as a win?

..or are we in yet another scenario where critics on the Right are unable to appreciate ancillary costs/benefits of a given issue?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I've already told you that I support legalization of all drugs. 

If the savings are all in court/law enforcement then that should have been the pitch--not some ridiculously inaccurate projection of tax revenue. However, Colorado cops are still busting illegal grow-ops and purveyors of marijuana--only now they're doing it for a different reason.




CubaMark said:


> And *if* there is indeed a lower-than-forecast tax revenue, but that is more than offset by savings in law enforcement / court system expenditures, can we not take that as a win?
> 
> ..or are we in yet another scenario where critics on the Right are unable to appreciate ancillary costs/benefits of a given issue?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Looks like any savings in enforcement will be eaten up by enforcement:

Colorado struggles to rein in medical pot market - The Denver Post

Let's call this effort: "The disastrous war on untaxed drugs that can be grown in your own back yard."


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And now, what anecdotal evidence has shown us all along. Either people with smaller brains are inclined to use marijuana, or marijuana use shrinks the brain:

Regular pot smokers have shrunken brains, study says - LA Times



> Compared with a person who never smoked marijuana, someone who uses marijuana regularly has, on average, less gray matter in his orbital frontal cortex, a region that is a key node in the brain's reward, motivation, decision-making and addictive behaviors network.





> Researchers noted that the IQ of the marijuana-using group was significantly lower than that of the non-using group--not a finding of the study, but an incidental factor that might be indirectly linked to marijuana use.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> And now, what anecdotal evidence has shown us all along. *Either people with smaller brains are inclined to use marijuana, or marijuana use shrinks the brain*:
> 
> Regular pot smokers have shrunken brains, study says - LA Times


That is not a logical conclusion of the study at all IMO based on the contents of the article/study:



> Even now, however, the authors of the study acknowledge that they cannot discern whether a pot smoker's smaller orbital frontal cortex is the cause or the result of chronic marijuana use. A 2012 study found that subjects with a smaller orbital frontal cortex at age 12 were more likely to start using marijuana by age 16, suggesting that deficits in this crucial region may predispose one to substance-abuse behaviors.





> This study, conducted by researchers from the University of Texas' Center for Brain Health and the Albuquerque-based Mind Research Network, did not follow subjects over time, so it is at a disadvantage in showing cause and effect.


At best, IMO the study indicates further study needs to be done to ascertain a pattern of cause and effect... that is basically the finding of the study IMO. 

No conclusions can be definitively drawn from this study. 

The sample size was extremely small, 48 users and 62 non-users. Also the time of the study was extremely short... only 6 months. That is a blip in a person's lifetime.

Why was the sample size weighted toward non-users? I would have thought they would be weighted equally and for a much longer period of time if one wanted to set up a control/neutral point.

Also no indication at all as to the quantities taken or how often a day, only the frequency. At least 4 in 7 days... but was it 4 days on 3 days off or, 1 day on 1 day off etc.

Not to mention the strength of the pot and the form must come into question... you could probably safely have 750ml of beer a day but not so safely 750ml of Jake Daniels a day.

I will say this, the over consumption of almost anything, whether it be pot, alcohol, tobacco, red meat, fat, sugar or even water etc. can kill you.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

This study, as already pointed out, has many legitimate points where it is open to criticism.

Chief among the weaknesses is the lack of before and after measurement. 

Further what is the meaning of a smaller brain size? No correlation has been convincingly drawn between brain size in humans (in the absence of pathology) and cognitive performance. 

I spent more that 25 years of my life researching effects of prenatal exposure to marijuana. We interviewed nearly 800 pregnant mothers and following the children thru ages birth to 21-25. We noted several satistically significant differences among the children based on the mother's consumption but nothing of life-changing importance. Note the difference between scientific *significance* and real-life *importance*. Unless you knew which groups the kids belonged to you would never notice any differences. Those differences required sophisticated tests and even more sophisticated analysis to uncover.

Of more importance to the current discussion, after the children reached age 18 we were able to ask about their own drug habits without being obligated to report the answers to parents. Enough relationship-of-trust (multiple testing over the years with the VERY SAME psychometrist/nurse over the 20-odd years) had been established with these kids that we could depend on the veracity of their reports which were verified by urinalysis. As global cognitive measure we were able to look at Weschler IQ because there are forms for both children and adults. The results were published here - Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults Here are the results and an interpretation. Considering that the SD for IQ is 15 the differences between the groups are not large and, more interesting, note that when heavy users quit their measured IQ recovered.


> Results: Current marijuana use was significantly correlated (p < 0.05) in a dose- related fashion with a decline in IQ over the ages studied. The comparison of the IQ difference scores showed an average decrease of 4.1 points in current heavy users (p < 0.05) compared to gains in IQ points for light current users (5.8), former users (3.5) and non-users (2.6).
> 
> Interpretation: Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I certainly made no correlation between intelligence and brain size. I just noted the findings regarding brain size and use.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I certainly made no correlation between intelligence and brain size. I just noted the findings regarding brain size and use.


*I did not say you did*.

My point was that when it comes to functionality, brain size seems to be spurious!!! 

And that it is important to distinguish between between real-life importance and mere scientific significance. 

And further, that marihuana use in approximately the same range as the size study to which you refer has little functional impact as measured by global IQ. 

And still further that when use is terminated the deficit, such as it was, is reversed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> *I did not say you did*.


Sorry, rgay--I should have directed toward screature.

Still using your MacBook Pro, by the way--just bought a new battery for it yesterday.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Sorry, rgay--I should have directed toward screature.
> 
> Still using your MacBook Pro, by the way--just bought a new battery for it yesterday.


Wow! Cool! That was the 15" wasn't it?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> Wow! Cool! That was the 15" wasn't it?


Yep, MacBook Pro 1,1. Still a productive member of my tech family! Third party replacement battery was only $52.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

screature said:


> That is not a logical conclusion of the study at all IMO based on the contents of the article/study:
> 
> At best, IMO the study indicates further study needs to be done to ascertain a pattern of cause and effect... that is basically the finding of the study IMO.
> 
> ...





rgray said:


> This study, as already pointed out, has many legitimate points where it is open to criticism.
> 
> Chief among the weaknesses is the lack of before and after measurement.
> 
> ...





Macfury said:


> *I certainly made no correlation between intelligence and brain size.* I just noted the findings regarding brain size and use.





Macfury said:


> Sorry, rgay--*I should have directed toward screature.*
> 
> Still using your MacBook Pro, by the way--just bought a new battery for it yesterday.


Whoa there! 

Why should your post have been directed at me? I never made a statement, or even suggested, that there is any correlation between brain size and intelligence either. Not sure where you are coming from on that front.

No such statement or suggestion was made by me. Check the record above.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're right, I misread.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> You're right, I misread.


Ok thanks MF, no harm no foul.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

It was not my intention to suggest any person here had drawn such a conclusion... I simply wished to point out the spuriousness of the original article (IMHO) because there is no body of research to suggest linkage between brain size and cognitive (functional) performance, Whether or not pot is related to brain size (in the absence of any before/after data) without some measure of the consequence of brain size is not very interesting (IMHO)......


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> It was not my intention to suggest any person here had drawn such a conclusion... I simply wished to point out the spuriousness of the original article (IMHO) because there is no body of research to suggest linkage between brain size and cognitive (functional) performance, Whether or not pot is related to brain size (in the absence of any before/after data) without some measure of the consequence of brain size not very interesting (IMHO)......


Agreed rgray...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> It was not my intention to suggest any person here had drawn such a conclusion... I simply wished to point out the spuriousness of the original article (IMHO) because there is no body of research to suggest linkage between brain size and cognitive (functional) performance, Whether or not pot is related to brain size (in the absence of any before/after data) without some measure of the consequence of brain size is not very interesting (IMHO)......


That said, I would still rather have a larger brain!


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Macfury said:


> That said, I would still rather have a larger brain!


I'll choose fully functional over size.....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray said:


> I'll choose fully functional over size.....


But we still don't know whether size and function are related. So with that up in the air, I'll fill my skull, thank you very much!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> That said, I would still rather have a larger brain!





rgray said:


> I'll choose fully functional over size.....





Macfury said:


> But we still don't know whether size and function are related. So with that up in the air, I'll fill my skull, thank you very much!


I was just going to say I don't want have a bigger brain because then it would spilling out of my ears and nose. 

That wouldn't be pretty!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Maybe, but promised tax revenue is dismally below target.


*Colorado is making so much money from cannabis it's having to give some back to citizens*

_Colorado's marijuana experiment has been an empirically rousing success thus far, with crime down and tourism up, and now the state has collected so much money in tax from sales of pot that it might be legally obliged to give some back.

The state constitution puts a cap on the amount of tax money that can be taken in before some has to be returned, meaning Coloradans could see a share of the $50 million generated by sales of recreational cannabis.

It's such an uncommon situation that both Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on it - both insist that there is no point in returning the money to taxpayers, not something you usually hear the GOP saying.
_

(IndependentUK)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Colorado is making so much money from cannabis it's having to give some back to citizens*


With the sharp spike in underage use, it's no wonder sales are up:



> Denver 8th grade student’s marijuana user rate is 350% higher than the national average for youth the same age.
> 
> Where do the students get their marijuana?* 38% reported they got from a friend who obtains it legally*, 23% reported from their parents, 22% from the black market, 9% from medical marijuana dispensaries, 4% from medical marijuana cardholders, 3% from retail marijuana stores.


Denver 8th Graders Use 350% Higher than National Average - SAM

However, I'm always leery of someone who suddenly begins to crow about tax revenue from sales on one issue only. For example, hunting generates $2.4 billion in sales tax revenue in Colorado, yet I have never seen you gleeful about this--just pot. What's up with that?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

uber humor?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> uber humor?


I know, right? Uberhumor has been posting a lot of dark stuff this past year or so....


----------

