Also from the August issue of Playboy.



I guess this is one reason some governments won't let people grow marijuana for personal use.

_________________

Wow, that's also higher than street prices.

Sarissa Candyangel

Well, realize too that the 'profit' generated in such instances usually goes right back into the health care system. I'm sure there are MANY drugs which are offered to the consumer in Canada which are sold at a loss, or provided free of charge. The 'profits' pay for the losses, and even then I'd bet you real American dollars their health care system is operating at a loss.

As far as 'home growing' goes, there's a variety of reasons to prohibit it, not just profit. In the instance of medicine, the main reason is the same reason doctors don't want you taking herbal crap (beyond the fact that it's dangerous in many cases) because the dosage can't be readily controlled. Prescription medication is refined, they distill only what's needed and get rid of harmful or even benign additives or synthesize only that which is beneficial. Now the marijuana clearly isn't 'distilled' but they know the amount, quality and what's in it. And they can better manage patient care by knowing how much of what is being used by the patient. Something they can't 'control' when the patient is home growing it.

It will also produce better studies to see when and where marijuana is beneficial over other medications, and when and where it's not. Which again, helps patients overall if you're looking for the best results for their care.

One last thing, while the profit margin is in that instance outrageous (and again the money is funneled back in I'm sure for losses) markups even huge ones (tho not that huge) exist because of costs they incur, such as testing the marijuana (I'm sure they don't just get it, hose it off and bag it ) paperwork, blah blah blah. NOT saying that those costs are 1400%...they're absolutely not, but it does increase the costs from the wholesale price. Just not nearly that much.

_________________

And people say medicine is cheaper in Canada. . . .

--J.D.

If you have a certificate from Health Canada you can also grow it yourself. A few people I know do that very thing.

Riiiiight like it goes back in the health care system... You should see how much my father pays his drugs. It's over 1100-1200$ a month, for like 8-10 pills a day. Good thing he has private insurance re-imbursing him (free air miles hehehe). Now if you have an accident and they hospitalize you you only end up paying a small amount which end up re-inbursed anyway and extras like TV of course etc... That's the good part.

I end up paying for it with my taxes anyway. And since the insurance re-inburse the drugs here the prices are insane because the pharmaceutical companies makes deals with the government excluding generic derivatines for X years etc. The same drug sell for many times more what they sell in the US. I don't have specific examples but I am sure they can be found easily.

Yeah, I was being just a little facetious about the "some governments". An analogy to home-brewing still being illegal in the US until the Carter (IIRC) administration is more accurate. It's a subject with a strong personal connection for me, I spent almost 6 years cross-breeding and hybridizing to come up with a strain that provided a large degree of pain relief without too many unwanted additional effects such as mind-numbness, dry-mouth, loss of co-ordination, etc. I understand not everyone is capable of maintaining a controlled environment, much less intelligent selection of growing medium, fertilizer, etc.

I guess it just really rubs me the wrong way that something as simple as growing an opportunistic plant like cannabis is obfuscated and complicated by government licensing and regulation. It's kind of like making everyone with a home vegetable garden follow all the reg's applied to commercial farming. It's very much like the regulation and restriction still current in the US for hemp farming. Only an idiot would try to smoke hemp to get high, but our government still refuses to recognize the distinction for domestic cultivation, while allowing highly regulated import of hemp fiber, oil, etc. for use in industry.

I think the very least the federal government could do is remove cannabis from the Schedule 1 classification of illegal drugs. Over 30 years of research has failed to support the fed's position, but people are still being jailed for simple posssession. I feel for the people in states like Cali, caught between state medical marijuana legislation and the fed's determination to continue demonizing pot.

I seldom buy anything because of the points you make, Tarot. When/if I'm ever in a position to set up my grow room again, I still have seed stock from the varieties I developed. It just galls me to no end to have to make a choice between living in pain, accepting narcotic or opiate pain relievers with all the associated negative side-effects or risking prosecution just for growing an innocuous plant to relieve pain.

Is it 4:20 yet?

_________________

But the children . . . the CHILDREN might smoke it!!!

Why do you hate children?

Unfortunately, that is what every politician faces if he tries to look at this issue rationally--"you want CHILDREN to become drug addicts!!" because that is what an opponent will smear him with.

You have probably read it, but Schlosser's Reefer Madness is a great book which changed my mind on the issue by discussing the politics and history--and current enforcement of marijuana laws.

That and I have yet to find anyone who looks like this:



after smoking marijuana!



Again, that requires politicians who will be smeared by opponents as "soft on crime" and "wanting the CHILDREN to be exposed to drugs!" Funny, I have a good friend [He has no friends.--Ed.] who grew medical marijuana in California--was quite proud of his state permits! His son tried to tell him that this was a stupid idea. I told him that the Federal Government would not care about his "state permits."

"What? State law TRUMPS Federal law!!"

I then asked him, "do you remember the test you took for US citizenship? Remember a little incident back in the 1860? The Civil War?"

"Yes. . . ."

"Well, it sort of solved the whole 'State vs. Federal law' issue!"

He removed his plants. Once he was informed that the Feds could seize his house as part of his "drug trade" for growing enough plants to be a "dealer." "Who knows! Pay enough for the right lawyers, you might get your home back in a few years!"



The "scientist" in me wants to see evidence that anything is better than anything else; however, frankly with pain management a LOT depends on the person--not just "what is in his head"--but how the pain syndrome developed--blah . . . blah . . . blah.

Frankly, I just do not see the risks outweighing the benefits. Are their side effects to marijuana? Of course. Compared to nicotine and alcohol? What about being addicted to narcotics? That someone becomes "addicted" to marijuana . . . does that justify removing it from anyone else? I use the quotation marks because I have not seen any evidence of physical addiction--certainly nothing like the physical addictions to alcohol and narcotics.

When I start seeing "Stoned Drivers"--MASD?--running down people. When I start seeing people as portrayed in the movie above from where the book gets its title, then I will worry about the public health risks of marijuana.

But what do I know . . . I hate children.

--J.D.

QUICK, HOUSE NEEDS DRUGS!!!!!

_________________

Okay that picture and post made me laugh until I cried.

_________________

I wish I could find--I suppose I will have to just get the DVD--the image of the guy when he is declared "INCURABLY INSANE!!!" at the end of the film. I think he is screaming in a straight jacket or something.

Anyways, when is the last time anyone has heard, "the driver of the vehicle responsible was stoned," or "has been charged with driving under reefer."

Okay . . . maybe once:



"Littering . . . AND?"

--J.D.

The Government can't make money off of weed if it is legal. What are they gonna say? "Ok, it is legal but ONLY if you buy it from us."

What? hi, taxes. The goverment makes a lot of money off of alcohol and cigarettes....

TAX!!!!!!! [!--Ed.]

--J.D.

Just call it "Use Tax" not profit and it makes more sense... no?

_________________

If you're paying less than $132 for 30 friggin grams of pot... that must be some pretty shitty weed!

Yep. Already in effect with many items, like gasoline.

I think their point is, that it's difficult to tax an item you can grow yourself.

_________________

People measure pot in grams these days? Man have times changed.

Pot is *ALREADY* taxed, in North Carolina and maybe Tennessee you can get your nuts in a vice for possessing over whatever amount because then you get charged without having the proper tax stamp for it on top of everything else.

And people charged under the influence of weed are charged the same as anyone else, Driving under the influence.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

That is true but how many people are actually going to grow it?

The temptation to let this degenerate into large industries taking over farms to grow pot . . . squeezing out the "Mom and Pop" growers . . . who demand farming subsidies . . . hiring illegal aliens . . .

--J.D.

You can get an ounce of weed for less than 100 dollars where you live? HOOK ME UP HOLMES

It's easy to grow lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, etc.... yet people still buy them at stores.

It's much easier to grow marijuana than tomatoes, surprisingly enough. Many people DO keep veggie gardens, but a lot of people ultimately pay more to grow them (depending on what they're doing) than it would cost to buy them. They do it because it's healthier (sometimes) and because they enjoy it. The people keeping gardens to save money usually have a much bigger garden, more diverse and aren't spending oodles of cash on fancy shit. That does save them money...but it's an awful lot of work, because they also preserve the extras, etc.

Marijuana is just stupid easy. It's about as complicated as maintaining a house plant, I shit you not. Heh.

_________________

Marijuana is so robust and can be used in its pure form. - Imagine if your houseplant grew ice cold Coronas.

If it were legal it people would grow it on their window ledge and have a high whenever they wanted.

I personally wouldn't touch the stuff probably... I smoked when I was younger - I just don't like being high.

That really depends on who you know at what level of distribution, for commercial anyway. In the "heartland" here, you won't find much connoisseur for sale anyway - or many people willing to spend the bucks on it. I was fortunate that after leaving active duty I was able to cater to a niche market of dumb college kids with more money than sense. $75 an eighth, if and when I had any excess. Limited supply of excellent herb = premium price. Amazing that I stood to lose my house and freedom just for marketing a pesticide-free, chemical additive free recreational product to upper-middle class young adults - especially when you consider what a lot of them were doing to themselves with alcohol on a regular basis.

On the other hand, I know second-hand that a lot of people buy herb in small "dime" bags which is pretty much trash at grossly inflated prices.

And meanwhile, the problems with meth continue to escalate.

_________________

That meth shit is scary. I think education is the key with it. It is so dangerous - its not like pot(at all). Unfortunately the govt.and anti drug organizations lost all their reputability by saying weed was the devils houseplant.

I hope someday soon people will pull their heads out of their asses and realize that alcohol is way more dangerous than pot - and stop criminalizing pot related offenses.

I have thought long and hard about why we have outlawed marijuana, and like I said before, the only reason I can think of is the lack of money that would be made from it.

Maybe that mixed with a little social stigma? Why do you all think we continue to outlaw marijuana?

^^^^Complicated--and covered in Schlosser's book--but much boils down to a lack of political will. Anyone advocating relaxation of the law is seen as a "pot-head" who want the children--the CHILDREN!!!--to smoke pot and, like, rape sheep or something.

--J.D.

Best sentence in this topic!

You don't need a lot of room to grow for personal use. They can't control who already grows it, legalizing it will only encourage those who don't. Taxing something means you must control how all people get it, that right there makes it nothing like gasoline, cigarettes, and alcohol. Sure vegetables are easy to grow but not everyone has the yard room needed to do grow them, however everyone does have a closet to grow marijuana in though, and that's all it takes for personal use without losing quality, for quantity the plants are moved outdoors. Telling people that stop by that a skunk was killed nearby is harder, without drawing suspicion....

I hope they do legalize it, but they're profit is in keeping it illegal and in fines. Perhaps they could profit off selling the seeds, however it's too easy to get cheap quality seeds from Canada already.

Or just ban alcohol (again) and tobacco.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

well shit, i killed my cactus- so that counts me out.

Chance to buy it legally insanely priced from gov't > no chance at all to buy it legally. We done here? =p

Like I said, shitty weed. Anything that comes packed in a brick with seeds galore doesn't count. In any event, it all started just making me paranoid as I got older, which has reduced it to a rare and metered indulgance.

Isn't the tax stamps thing really just another means of tacking on charges when people get arrested? I can't imagine any state is actually collecting some meaningful amount of revenue on pot taxation stamps...

Yes, it is. The only place to get the stamp is at the stamp office, and it's illegal to possess in the first place so they stack on more charges. There have been a few stamp collectors that have purchased them over the years I believe.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

To my understanding when the Commissioner of the US Narcotics Bureau could not get a federal prohibition in the late thirties, he succeeded in having a "transfer tax" imposed. Failure to pay the tax and obtain the stamp would institute a federal crime . . . and the government has always refused to issue tax stamps. To my recollection, this is constitutional since the government succeeded in doing this to prevent the sale of certain fire-arms--you had to get a tax stamp or permit, and the government refused to issue them. Went to the Supreme Court and the government won, so there was precedence.

--J.D.

Chance to grow it yourself because it's become legal to possess and impossible to detect when grown on your own without a search warrant > Chance to buy it legally insanely priced from gov't.

Now we are! =P

You seriously think people will all of a sudden pay out of their ass for gov't issued marijuana when they can get it cheaper from their already usual & reliable source(s)? If so you're not as bright as I thought. The only way the government would make any money is if it was dirt cheap for quality, which would force the already existent black market out of that business, however that still wouldn't effect those who grow their own.

Marijuana grows really well in an area with a dense concentration of wild vegetation (like blackberries).

Back in my hometown, near the sheriff's office there are old Hop Farms which have of course become overgrown with blackberries since the farms went bust years ago. Someone had been growing Marijuana out in the middle of one of the fields, amongst the blackberries. The only way the cops found out about it was because a helicopter was flying over the patch at night and they noticed lights on the ground.

I've always been on the pro-legalization side, and not because I feel the need to get high (did that enough back in high school). I'm sure we've all heard of the numerous uses for a Marijuana plant so there really is no need to repeat them. Plus, let the government tax the shit out of it, then at least states like Nevada wouldn't be throwing people in jail for 20 to Life just for having the shit.

_________________

That's the argument Kham, you can't tax something that's far too easy to either get or grow on your own, for the goal of making a profit. It grows really well with light,water, and good soil all the way up until the first frost of the year (outdoors, indoors year round), it's easy to disguise since it can blend in like a weed (outside of it's odor), and animals love it (which usually leads to it being found, deer make paths right to it)... Indoors it's possible to grow it under your wife/husbands nose with proper ventilation, however chances are they're aware and enjoy not throwing money into others' hands for it as much as anyone and feel it's far safer then buying off some schmuck on the streets. A good method of crop rotation is all the average person needs for year round self-usage, all indoors. Which makes it easier to control the quality while suffering to the limitation of quantity that outdoor plants can produce...

It's a cash crop that the government fell asleep on as far as for smoking purposes. They could still make money but it would be on other products from hemp; shirts, paper, rope, etc... Overpricing the drug market would only put more money into the already existent dealers hands or encourage people to just grow it themselves. There would have to be an age limit, so as disgusting as it is to say, the people under age would still be an untapped market and the already existing market would still have the available sources that were available prior to any legalization. If it's still cheaper then government prices what reasons would people have to buy from the government? There is no "true" physical addiction so it's not even comparable to cigarettes nor alcohol.

The government would have to force the black market out of business first, which would take at least a few years at incredibly low prices (however that still wouldn't effect those who grow their own..). Then a few years later try to tax the shit out of it. Still by doing this the only thing they will encourage is a reopening of the black market at increased prices from prior but still lower then the governments' prices. I am in favor of them trying it, I just laugh at the taxation idea...

You did touch on a money saving topic though, unneeded jail sentences would save a shit load of money in the long run, however they'd still lose out on fines in the short run. So... the first few years the government is likely to lose money off making it legal.

Call me an idiot if you'd like, however I've thought it all out (since 20 years ago I thought the same thing as far as taxing it). It's my belief many others' haven't given it enough thought or don't truly know enough about how easy it is to get and/or grow w/out the help of the government. It's a war the government can't control and is far less likely to win. They'd have to legalize all drugs and control the others' because marijuana is a lost cause for profit by taxation.

I still think you folks overestimate the zealous nature of the US. Sure, some people will grow it on their own, and sure the government won't get any tax revenue off that. But there will be lots of other people that won't make the effort, that will happily buy it from their local supermarket just like many of our vegetables. And that would all be taxable.

But again you are forgetting the already existent black market. If the guy down the road sells vegetables at a lower price then the supermarket where are you going to go, better yet, what if he even delivers? They can't stop it now, legalizing it won't stop it either. Sure if the black market suddenly disappeared yes, the government would have a business. But until then why pay more for the same product? Capitalism at work.

http://www.aerogrow.com/

Carole Sue! There is hope for you to grow pot yet!

The black market is sizable now due to the massive profits possible. If dealers sell weed and cocaine for instance, legalization and regulation make them less likely to continue selling weed because the government would be more in their shit than it already is.

It'd be hard to think that even if it were legal to grow and sell it that growers would not have to be registered and investigated in some way (FDA, etc).

The situation as I'd see it would be it being legalized, growers beginning to produce. The growers make contracts with a Phillip Morris type company, that forbids them to sell privately. Of course they have to take it, because they cannot rid themselves of the quantity they are capable of growing. The ones who are enterprising enough to distribute themselves, are now in a niche market and can sell for higher prices than the large companies as a "home brew off brand" like organic produce is.

P.S. Unless you know someone, most branded weed you buy is the same dirt shit with the seeds and stems picked out, marked up about 3x.

Sarissa Candyangel

You said it all right there, however you can't regulate marijuana, cocaine is a completely different story, comparing the two is ridiculous. Legalizing it and selling it with a tax at an increased price isn't eliminating the black market, only increasing the price of what the dealers can get for it. You're thinking people actually care if it's legal or not to grow/sell... people will still grow it and sell it cheaper then the government. It's already illegal, and it's still done more then most people probably think. You don't need acres, only a few feet or yards and privacy. Cops are the last to find them... it's usually animals or someone found them to harvest themselves...

How is the government going to crack down on those who grow it in a secluded room in their house? They can't even control where it grows wild. The ACLU would have a field day with the violation of privacy rights if done w/out a warrant... Last I checked they can't raid a house due to suspicious electric bills... especially if it's done year round where there is no fluctuation on it.



Or you grow it yourself, each strand increases in potency, with a dark garbage bag you can easily kill the male plants and/or separate them from females to eliminate seeds, with two rooms (or even closets) you can fertilize your next batch on your own. Sure there is plenty of garbage out there, but that's why it's sold so cheap, to get rid of a shitty product. Higher prices are because of the demand for a higher quality product. Smell alone can determine the junk from the good, just like squeezing fruit, don't like it don't buy it...

Really it all boils down to this right here;

The government can't control who grows and sells it while it's illegal, legalizing it won't change a thing. They should probably just encourage people to grow it themselves, that way the black market for it is self-eliminated completely, and they can just save the money on jail sentences in the long run. A tax on toilet flushing is more feasible and far more controllable...

Tuluvian, when alcoholic beverages were illegal, a massive black market formed for the products. When they repealed the ban on alcoholic beverages, by your logic the black market should have stayed and flourished.

Yet, we have a nearly non-existent black market for alcoholic beverages, despite the taxes the government has put on legal alcohol.

Forget the black market. The real cost of alcohol on society isn't the drinks. It's the resultant diseases and loss of human potential. How many alcoholics end up needing treatment? How many man hours of productivity are wasted annually from alcohol consumption? How many alcoholics every year end up with end-stage liver disease? cirrhosis? liver transplants? What's the cost to society for their medical care? To taxpayers? To me? To you?

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to ban alcohol or tobacco. I also think it's hypocritical for alcohol and tobacco to be legal, yet not marijuana.

Yet, I am also 100% for personal responsibility. What I mean by this is, I don't care what you smoke, what you drink, but if you end up killing yourself over it, you better be able to take care of yourself and your expenses. What irritates me is when people want all these personal freedoms, and ALSO want the government to take care of everything, like through socialized medicine...are you one of these people? If you want personal freedom, then you should also want personal responsibilty.

You want to smoke 2 to 3 packs a day? Knock yourself out. Just be ready to pony up and pay the hospital if you end up with emphysema, COPD, or lung cancer. Same if you smoke MJ (if it was legal). Drink yourself stupid? Be my guest, just don't hurt anyone else in the process (drunk driving), and when you need a liver transplant, kindly pony up the $200,000+ you'll need, or your weekly plasma transfusions for your cirrhosis. If you don't have the money, mainly because you spent it all on your liquor/cigarettes without saving enough money for your potential long term health problems (wow, is that really possible? Do people really spend money on drugs and alcohol without saving for the future? perish the thought!), then be kind enough to realize you've made some really bad choices in your life, and you don't with to burden society with your problems when the time comes for your medical bill.

What I don't want to see is responsible people having to pay for the irresponsibility of others. Which is what happens when all these people show up at a county hospital to be treated by hard-working taxpayers who decided, oh I don't know, to work for a living to support themselves and their families instead of getting high every day zoning out on their buzz.

People like Sijandi crack me up.

How noble of you, seriously. Six years of playing armchair scientist in your basement raising weed to try and find a better method of pain relief. Ever though of doing research on opium? That's a great pain killer too I've heard. I don't know why you just didn't decide to go get yourself a biology or pharmacology degree and work for the CDC or something and do it legally and with more resources at hand. Or better yet, why not just move to a different country where that kind of stuff is legal and you could do all the "research" (wink wink) you wanted without the government breathing down your back.....but of course that would be too much to ask. No doubt you want to enjoy the freedoms and opportunities the United States can offer you over a country like Amsterdam, but you just don't want to bother following the rules.

If there was something in cannibus that worked well for pain relief without side effects, don't you think the money-hungry drug companies like Pfizer and Merck would have isolated it by now and marketed it? Certainly they have more resources available than Sijandi and his 12 plants in his basement. They already have THC in pill form. You ever wonder why it's not marketed heavier? While a drug like Vicodin, which is probably much more addictive and harmful than marijuana, is pushed so heavily?

The bottom line is marijuana, while beneficial in certain circumstances, also comes with side effects.....and in almost every circumstance, if not every one, there is another medication that can do the same exact thing with a smaller adverse profile.

That being said.....I'm not against the legalization of marijuana. If alcohol and tobacco are legal with their known health risks, I don't see any reason why marijuana shouldn't be....except when I read these boards and see the same narcissists that just want "me,me,me, don't tell me what I can't smoke, drink, or do!", want the government to take care of everyone, and want taxpayers (especially the rich!) to pay for it all, including the sequelae of their drug habits even though every one under the sun, including the government, has warned them of the potential health risks.

What does fully legalizing it have to do with the difference between the two options i presented? Of course it'd be better to legalize it, I didn't say otherwise.

Here's the breakdown, from worst to best scenarios:

1) No option at all to get it legally.
2) Option to get it at insanely high prices.
3) Fully legalized.

Option 2 gives you a chance without getting busted for it, which allows for a further freedom of choice. Is there something about that that's actually BETTER than option 1? If so please fill me in.

I'd say public figures, for example, or very wealthy people might gladly opt for option 2 to avoid getting busted. We see celebrities getting busted for it all the time on the news, if they had an option to get it legally with all the money they have I'd bet they'd take it. I'm not entirely sure if Health Canada is selling it for medical uses only but for this case I'll assume so: You still have a situation where a rich or well-known person would be tempted by it if they had a condition where marijuana helped. Some freedom > no freedom.

First, Amsterdam is not a country. Second, rules mean nothing if they make no sense for the situation at hand. No doubt you'd be the guy shouting at the jaywalker for rescuing a baby in the middle of the road.

I doubt he would, but it's still not legal here and it's your ass if you get caught growing it, way to take a stand, that'll really teach the government!

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I'm not sure if most people breaking stupid laws like this are thinking they're sticking it to the government so much as they're just doing what they want and should be able to do.

I wasn't comparing the two. My point was that I don't know many dealers that sell *just* weed, and I can't imagine they'd relish being investigated to sell a now legal and less profitable product.

Sarissa Candyangel

How many here spend $35 to $50 a week on cigarettes or beer? How many here grow their own tobacco or brew their own beer? I think there is plenty of room for goverment taxed pot to compete with the grow your own crowd.

So who decides if the rules don't make any sense for the situation at hand? You?

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Given particularly obvious situations(this one, IMO, is a given), anyone capable of following a logical pattern of thought on what is and isn't morally acceptable. Allowing a baby to die in a street to obey the jaywalking law is, quite simply, morally unacceptable. Doesn't take a genius to recognize a bad law that probably shouldn't be followed, just take a gander at any number of the dumb law type websites to figure that one out. Some of the good examples come out of Texas, for example when it was against the law to have sex with a member of the same sex prior to 2003. I can only imagine you would have fed homosexual couples the same line back then too: Who decides if the rules don't make any sense for the situation at hand? You?

Clearly participating in the use of a substance that has non-trivial (negative) effects on one's body is morally acceptable by all manner of people; definitely a cut and dry case here.

I guess the gist here is that all supposed 'laws' are in fact simply 'suggested guidelines' for you to follow given your impeccable moral code.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Or maybe, just maybe, we have no business outlawing an activity when the person involved is a consenting adult? Maybe we have no business telling anyone whether they should be smoking marijuana.

While I'm at it, this goes for prostitution, polygamy, gay marriage, and any other currently illegal activity in which everyone involved is a consenting adult.

As Fribur pointed out, why should we have any say on what someone ELSE does to their own body? This is similar to laws against suicide. It's a question of true freedom in a country that is founded on freedom. I agree, cut and dry case. I guess we should now outlaw eating too much in a day, since it has many non-trivial effects on one's body. Or any number of things we do that are less than healthy.



Not sure where you're getting the idea that I have an impeccable moral code, but thanks! Must have been that line about not following every law to the T, clearly that indicates I am the master of morality.

Suggested guidelines... close, but not quite, since there are forseeable consequences. They are rules designed to keep the order and maintain stability, and they usually do a good job of it. I don't think too many people expect there not to be consequences for their actions when they act against the law and face the cops. During protester activities during the civil rights era such as sit-ins, they knew what they were getting themselves into and accepted the consequences.

In essence they may be seen as suggested guidelines though. Would you follow a law that told you to murder a person every morning? I don't think you need a moral compass for that one.

One of the interesting concepts in Robert A. Heinlein's fiction is the idea of a society where the only laws consist of actions which harm others. If an action holds no harm to another, it cannot be forbidden. Harming yourself or risking yourself is allowed...with the only exceptions being for age (children need watching obviously until they are adults) and illness (one must be mentally competent). However the presumptions of this society in his futuristic fiction is also that mental illness is highly treatable and resolvable.

People who violate the laws (beyond 'harming' others, the other laws regard people's right to privacy, property, etc.) have two options: medical treatment (which is very benign and consists of them living in a 'resort' like atmosphere and engaging essentially in talk therapy which doesn't even resemble what we consider therapy until they're 'rational') or banishment to 'Coventry', which is an anarchist-like Mad Max beyond Thunderdome area outside this society. Various sections of 'Conventry' are run by religious cults, or 'might makes right' type groups.

Anyway, beyond being interesting fiction, it's also an interesting concept. It essentially calls upon each person to be responsible for themselves, and to mind their own fucking business. No 'crime' exists unless the state can prove an action was harmful to others. That being said, getting pissed off and hitting someone would get you sent to treatment or Coventry.

While it's not workable in reality for a variety of reasons (unfortunately) it's interesting to look at and think about. Especially when you consider how many of our laws are designed intellectually not for "our" protection but to prevent other people from doing something we find morally "wrong". If you think having sex with a prostitute is morally wrong...why you don't need a law against it! You simply would not engage in the act. You have to believe that it's wrong, and that other people WILL do it...and thus convince yourself that it must be prevented.

_________________

You can be quite the enigma Fribur. On one hand, I see you advocating personal freedoms, without government intervention, and in other threads, I see you advocating taxation and government intervention, as far as taking care of it's citizens.....so you don't want the government to interfere with what you can do, but you do want the government to take care of you if you need them to. I don't know if there is an actually political term for it, but it really seems like governmental paternalism.

And not to be too denigrating, but it's like having a child/parent relationship, where you want to be able to do anything you want, but if you ever need anything or get into trouble, you want the government (parent) to bail you out.

Citizen (child): "Don't tell me what I can or can't do! I'm an adult! I'll do what I want! YOU CAN'T STOP ME !!@!@!@!@"
Citizen, 5 years later: "I'm not ready to move out of the house yet, keep supporting my room and board please"
Citizen, 5 years after that: "I'm in between jobs, can I move back home?''
Citizen: "I smoked some weed, got into a car accident.....can you pay for the damages and my medical bill? I would pay for it myself, but I have no money"
Citizen: "I've worked 30 years, used up all my savings living large, so now that I'm retired, can you give me an allowance so I can live the lifestyle I'm accustomed to?"

So in other words, do whatever you want to do, but when the shit hits the fan, have the government support you.
So if the government should have no role in regulating the activity adults can do, why on earth should they be able to regulate how much we get taxed, and where our tax dollars go? As a responsible adult, shouldn't I be able to decide where my money goes? If I want my tax dollars to go to education instead of welfare, shouldn't I be able to make that call?

So in part, I can agree with you, because I am fully in support of smaller government. I think the less the government interferes with its citizenry, the better. However, unlike you, I apply that to everything, including taxation and governmental agencies. I would like to see our government not only interfere less in personal liberties, but also to downsize in all it's bureaucratic aspects. Again, personal freedom = personal responsibility, so you are you so-called responsible, consenting adult that you profess to be, then you surely should be responsible enough to take care of your own problems that you may bring upon yourself.

As for Venen, probably the single greatest narcissist on these boards, I can only say that it's comforting to know that you at least stay true to your colors. Anyone who ever spent any time playing Everquest in the early Lanys years knows full well your philosophy of "well, if it benefits me, then it's OK" attitude in Lower Guk....I wonder how many people are still around from those early days.....oh that's right, you don't remember anyone accidently dying to your large FD pulls etc. while you were trying to experience. Ever. Never happened!

As in the other thread about how power determines what is right and wrong, you could not properly outline who gets to decide on what is moral and immoral, except I'm sure you think it's whatever it is in your eyes. So it comes as no suprise that you want to do whatever you want or whatever you feel is right, and feel that others should follow this same guideline....."rules are stupid and do not need to be followed if you don't think they are correct". To answer your question yet again about who determines the rules, it's the power that be. If you were in power, then you can determine the rule. In the US, as a democracy, it's the majority opinion, not any individual. To use your Texas example, if homosexuality is outlawed, then it's outlawed, despite what your personal feelings on the matter are. If you don't like it, then 1) move to a different country or region more in line with your beliefs, 2) rise to a position of power where you can affect change, 3) live with it. It goes both ways. I'm sure there are people in Texas now that feel like it's crap that homosexuality is allowed. You know what? Tough on them. If they don't want homosexuality around them, then pick up their shit and move to China or whereever it might still be outlawed.....or they can try and see if they can raise a majority to change the laws to outlaw homosexuality again.

The problem as a narcissist, Venen, is that you think you are always right, or that your opinion somehow matters more. It doesn't. It only matters if you are in a position to do something about it. So unless you are a lawmaker, powerbroker, or lobbyist, then really the only person who cares what you think is you. But as a narcissist, I'm sure that's exactly how you like it, and as someone who probably has never been put in a position of power, why you have such difficulty understanding it.

You're such a douchebag sometimes Nekrotic. This is a fucking message board, people post opinions. You say you don't care about his opinion but yet here you are engaging him in discussion about it. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't bother. The "your opinion doesn't matter" argument on a message board is old and tired. Without opinions wtf would we read? It's what we do here dumbass.

Also Nekrotic, you ever watch the Colbert Report? His "I don't see color" shtick cracks me up every time and makes me think of an argument you and I had awhile back, which makes that thread even funnier. Thanks for providing your opinion in that thread, even though, you know, no one cares. Damn narcissists.

Venen you're missing the point... First of all they're not going to go around and give people options and say it's legal but only if you buy from us, they're just going to do or they won't, so options are irrelevant. Second (since you asked), yes, grow it yourself or buy it from your usual seller, unfortunately now at a marked up price. The "options" aren't given to us now, why would anyone care about them later? The law is being broken, once grown, rolled and/or packed how can the government possibly tell what was sold legally from that illegally? Please tell me you're not condoning illegal search and seizures of people's homes...

Fribur, if all that was available was our shitty beer, yes there would be a black market for it... However thankfully we allow foreign beers to be sold in our stores. Cigars are legal, but yet Cuban cigars are not, people do it without government knowledge, or second hand (under the nose of the government...). You can't compare alcohol with marijuana, the means to make/grow your own are just that incomparable. Although moonshine runners (if they even still exist) would beg to differ. To my knowledge Absinthe is still not available in the U.S. (correct me if I am wrong here) but yet you can still get it, here in the U.S.


Let's hope they legalize it for fuck's sake... then I'll be surprised if the government does indeed make money from the tax revenue off the smokers alone (they will make money from other products made, and I never said they wouldn't...). or.. You be surprised when they don't. I know it won't make much difference to me personally unless it's dirt cheap for a high quality product, however that's not what the argument here has been about, only taxing the shit out of it once legalized.