Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:36 pm
by Troy
My short list:
Puerto Rico a state? (maybe)
Legalized it in two states (wooo)
What is a pansexual? (a Senator in Texas)
Edited By Troy on 1352320580
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:55 pm
by WSGrundy
Troy wrote:What is a pansexual? (a Senator in Texas)
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:08 pm
by GORDON
Pansexual.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:10 pm
by Malcolm
Puerto Rico a state? (maybe)
Not a chance. They consistently reject that proposal. They aren't changing their minds now, what with out stellar economic outlook and all.
Legalized it in two states (wooo)
Meaningless because, for some bullshit reason, federal law supersedes any state legal regarding controlled substances ... no matter how fucking insane the classification of said substance is.
What is a pansexual? (a Senator in Texas)
People attracted to kitchen items?
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:15 pm
by Troy
Puerto Rico already did, unless by "They" you meant "Old white people in Congress" which is a fair point.
Weed
Dunno man, I've done a lot of traveling on the West Coast lately, and the culture is... changing.
Peyton Manning is already thinking ahead.
I just like the idea of a pansexual, a person so fucking horny it pretty much doesn't matter if it fits SOMEWHERE.
Edited By Troy on 1352323063
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:16 pm
by GORDON
One of my ecstatic, obnoxious relatives last night was so pleased on Facebook that now that Obama was back in, she could smoke weed at her wedding as she married a girl. Didn't bother telling her it was obama ordering all the medicinal marijuana busts in California when they legalized it.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:42 pm
by Malcolm
Puerto Rico already did, unless by "They" you meant "Old white people in Congress" which is a fair point.
Bingo. We haven't added a new state in awhile. We probably forgot how to do it.
Weed
Dunno man, I've done a lot of traveling on the West Coast lately, and the culture is... changing.
Doesn't matter. The culture in D.C. and at the DEA is not. Federal law wins. You'd still need to look over your shoulder before lighting up.
Didn't bother telling her it was obama ordering all the medicinal marijuana busts in California when they legalized it.
That motherfucker is getting off completely free for that. I imagine it's strictly a cash thing now, since raiding and fining domestic dispensaries is probably a lot more profitable than trying to do any real work to enforce the lip service drug policy you allegedly believe in.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:55 pm
by GORDON
Why wouldn't he get off for it? Most people don't care that it was a department in his branch of the government doing the raiding, and the media sure as hell wasn't going to clue anyone in.
It was probably the damned obstructionists in the other branch of government that is actually supposed to represent the will of the people.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:19 pm
by TPRJones
Troy wrote:What is a pansexual?
Though many might describe Gonzalez's orientation as bisexual, pansexuals don’t believe in a "gender binary," and hence can be attracted to all gender identities.
Gonzalez specified to the Voice that she doesn’t believe in a gender binary because “gender identity isn’t the defining part of my attraction," and that she never fully embraced the term "lesbian." Although she came out as bisexual at age 21, Gonzalez said she has also dated transgender and "gender-queer" people, in addition to women.
"During the campaign if I had identified as pansexual, I would have overwhelmed everyone," she said. "Now that I’m out of the campaign, I’m completely much more able to define it."
So, yeah, Captain Jack.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 6:13 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Why wouldn't he get off for it? Most people don't care that it was a department in his branch of the government doing the raiding, and the media sure as hell wasn't going to clue anyone in.
It was probably the damned obstructionists in the other branch of government that is actually supposed to represent the will of the people.
Most stoners probably forget to vote.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:00 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Why wouldn't he get off for it? Most people don't care that it was a department in his branch of the government doing the raiding, and the media sure as hell wasn't going to clue anyone in.
It was probably the damned obstructionists in the other branch of government that is actually supposed to represent the will of the people.
Most stoners probably forget to vote.
I'd vote for legalizing it, and then never smoke it in my life. Point is, I know Obama won't allow it, at least by his previous actions. "Big Marijuana" needs to start making campaign donations if they want anything done.
Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:32 pm
by TPRJones
The problem is currently "Big Marijuana" is the drug cartels, and I'm sure they already put billions into keeping it illegal so the prices stay up.
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:28 am
by Malcolm
The drug lords at the top do get to charge a massive premium due to the black market thing. Were it legal, I'd say having production costs achieve parity with tobacco is a possibility. One ounce of tobacco can be had for around $4-5 and that's still retail price. The street value of an ounce of marijuana is approximately one hundred times that. Nobody wants to give up that markup. I still remain astounded how the gov't and DEA claim "America can't afford another drug habit." Cartels can recover from virtually any setback federal authorities of any country want to throw at them because their profit margin is so goddamned high, they don't need a lot of success to be financially lucrative. They can spend all that cash on military hardware and private armies to make it even more difficult. That means the gov't gets to spend more fighting them, which means the cartels spend more, ad nauseum.
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:22 am
by TheCatt
I would think that marijuana would still be more expensive:
smaller user base
Less yield per acre
More complex harvesting (you're not picking the leaves)
But yeah, it'd be at least 10x cheaper than today.
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:27 am
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:But yeah, it'd be at least 10x cheaper than today.
Cheaper still once they clear out all the people in jail for weed possession.
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:30 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:TheCatt wrote:But yeah, it'd be at least 10x cheaper than today.
Cheaper still once they clear out all the people in jail for weed possession.
Got to keep those prisons guards and wardens employed and keep the bullshit going to get more funding. How something like the U.S. drug policy can cost and lose this much and still not be considered an overt failure is a testament to the stupidity of the American public. How the fuck is it considered successful if it continually requires more and more cash?
Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:40 pm
by TheCatt
GORDON wrote:TheCatt wrote:But yeah, it'd be at least 10x cheaper than today.
Cheaper still once they clear out all the people in jail for weed possession.
Well, now it pays for itself.
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:33 am
by TPRJones
Malcolm wrote:How something like the U.S. drug policy can cost and lose this much and still not be considered an overt failure is a testament to the stupidity of the American public.
The War on Drugs has been one of the most successful programs the federal government has ever undertaken. It's justified huge advancements in the power of governments over the citizenry, resulted in massive hikes in funding for a myriad of government organizations, and spun off entire industries dealing with related contracting tasks for private companies.
It's only a failure if you think they are actually trying to stop drugs. But that's never been the purpose of it. On the contrary, if they did that they'd all be out of jobs.
Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:41 am
by Malcolm
Thanks to Nixon and every asshole that stepped shit up. I'm looking squarely at your "Just say no" ass, Reagan.
Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:26 pm
by Malcolm