Marijuana: 0

[Lemur]

Fragony, could you unpack that idea? 'Cause I'm not quite understanding it as it's currently phrased. "Taxing the legalized crime"? Um, okay, if something's no longer illegal, and then you tax it, I guess you're taxing a legalized crime. Now that miscegenation laws have been struck down, do the fees paid for mixed-race marriage licenses count as "taxing a legalized crime"?

No, I'm probably completely misunderstanding your point. If you've got the time, please expand so that we can respond without making these flailing motions ...

[Fragony]

Fragony, could you unpack that idea? 'Cause I'm not quite understanding it as it's currently phrased. "Taxing the legalized crime"? Um, okay, if something's no longer illegal, and then you tax it, I guess you're taxing a legalized crime. Now that miscegenation laws have been struck down, do the fees paid for mixed-race marriage licenses count as "taxing a legalized crime"?

No, I'm probably completely misunderstanding your point. If you've got the time, please expand so that we can respond without making these flailing motions ...

Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

[Geoffrey S]

Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.

[Xiahou]

Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.

If you mean "well regulated", then I'm in agreement.

[LittleGrizzly]

Somebody Else sure signs for stoners so employers know, but why stop the discrimination there ? theres drinkers, fat people, those on anti-depressents...

we could get some kind of goverment survellience so employers could know every little bad habit of thier potential employees

and somebody else as for the bit about being tedious your probably either a hypocrit (drinker) or quite boring yourself.

[Somebody Else]

Somebody Else sure signs for stoners so employers know, but why stop the discrimination there ? theres drinkers, fat people, those on anti-depressents...

Happily I'm planning on going into an industry where self-discipline is a requirement.

we could get some kind of goverment survellience so employers could know every little bad habit of thier potential employees

Welcome to Britain under Labour...

and somebody else as for the bit about being tedious your probably either a hypocrit (drinker) or quite boring yourself.

Either a drinker, or boring... So non-drinkers, (or indeed, anyone without any vices) are quite boring are they? Interesting...

And yes, I do drink - but infrequently have I met someone who drinks who behaves in the same way that the majority of those that I have met who smoke do.

Oh, and I have the occasional cigar, even snuff too.

I do not, however, claim to be interesting. It's not my place to do so.

SE

[PBI]

So non-drinkers, (or indeed, anyone without any vices) are quite boring are they?

Yes, people with no vices are usually tediously self-righteous and very boring in my experience. Having no character flaws at all is usually a recipe for a person being utterly un-likeable in my book.

Why would there be a need to have weed users declare it to potential employers? If it makes them lazy or unprofessional, that should be reason enough not to employ them without delving into their personal habits. If not, it's none of your business.

[Fragony]

Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.

Hash would also be legal then it's in the same category, and all the smuggling and behind it, really legalising and taxing it is too tricky.

[Geoffrey S]

Hash would also be legal then it's in the same category, and all the smuggling and behind it, really legalising and taxing it is too tricky.

Plenty of places in the US where it could be produced. As for Europe, Morocco is already a major exporter - but in the Rif mountains, it is completely dominated by crime cartels. Legalization would break those and quite possibly be an advantage to the actual farmers in the region. In other words, for best results a coordinated effort with the Moroccan government would be worthwhile - we'd probably get it cheaper, and Morocco would actually make money of the deal.

[Fragony]

Hmm make sense to me.

[LittleGrizzly]

Either a drinker, or boring... So non-drinkers, (or indeed, anyone without any vices) are quite boring are they? Interesting...

Probably a bit too much of a generalisation but i would say quite a few people without any vices could be quite boring

And yes, I do drink - but infrequently have I met someone who drinks who behaves in the same way that the majority of those that I have met who smoke do.

Yes smokers tend to behave a bit different to drinkers.... im reminded of a song think its by the streets ill have a look....

I don't see what your problem with smokers behaviour is ? England football fans show us regularly what a good bit of alcohol intake can do, i can't quite imagine a group of stoners quite behaving the same way..... we see the negative effects of drink every weekend in our citys, violence and public disorder, so how can you see this behaviour as ok but stoners as not ?

although you did describe stoners as boring so maybe the problem is they don't get up to all this crap when thier stoned ? ill admit it probably has its own entertainment value, but then call me boring because i won't be out this friday night kicking someones head in and stealing a traffic cone...