To all americans , a question for you

I was thinking the same thing. Is he?

edit: comparison with Bush Jr. doesn't count. Even I would do better than him, without even being eligible. More honestly, I drunk, blinded and with hands tied would still do better.

In terms of the big issues (Marijuana), it's looking unlikelier and unlikelier that he'll make a great change.

You'd expect the first black dude in office to be all over that shit…

torture was outsourced to third party vendors. rendition is still being done. there's still no clear vision for an exit plan from iraq. fortress america (the world's largest embassy) is still held by americans.

obama is picking to back ethanol instead of biomass generated electricity which is a more efficient use of those corn crops and saves more oil/petrol for other uses.

he's been doing nothing about netinyahu's advances into the palestinian west bank and most likely won't be doing anything anytime soon. he hasn't shown anything that resembles an alexandrian solution to the gordian knot of israel/palestine…it isn't that hard, just cut out the racists and control both sides…we're supposed to be the superpower here so it shouldn't be hard to influence both sides and if anything should be harder to influence the palestinians since they're basically dirt poor impoverished and don't have much that we, as a superpower, could take away from them.

when you look at it, there's no real change in policy or differences other than a semantical difference. he's not taking laws off the books. hasn't even taken faith based initiatives out and that shit violates the first amendment in blatant fashion (the constitution is supposed to protect the rights of the minorities, not something to be ignored by the majority).

I like him

[quote1244273224=Super Sonic]
I like him
[/quote1244273224]

you would.

Nothing was ever gonna happen overnight. Give him a year and let's see what happens.

[quote1244308466=madamadam]
Nothing was ever gonna happen overnight. Give him a year and let's see what happens.
[/quote1244308466]

whatever. he has henry kissinger's seal of approval. that makes him grade A slime in my book and not to be trusted.

You don't trust anyone in power.

it's healthy. just ask the germans…or the russians….or the americans in 20 years.

[quote1244319429=madamadam]
In terms of the big issues (Marijuana)[/quote1244319429]
I almost blew snot all over my keyboard when I read this.

[quote1244319566=the unlucky platypus]there's still no clear vision for an exit plan from iraq.[/quote1244319566]
That's 'cause we're just straight up [i]exiting.[/i]

lol exit plan. There's only so many ways to exit.

yeah….the placement of that embassy and the green zone in general REALLY looks like we're exiting anytime soon.

[quote1244321733=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244319429=madamadam]
In terms of the big issues (Marijuana)[/quote1244319429]
I almost blew snot all over my keyboard when I read this.
[/quote1244321733]

if you think about it from a practical standpoint (i know that isn't army protocol but work with me) it is pretty big in terms of number of people jailed (lost money), the cost on the public health at large(lost money, increase in crime, loss of life), the cost of government enforcement of such laws, and the lost taxable revenue by keeping it illegal.

[quote1244322215=the unlucky platypus]
[quote1244321733=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244319429=madamadam]
In terms of the big issues (Marijuana)[/quote1244319429]
I almost blew snot all over my keyboard when I read this.
[/quote1244321733]

if you think about it from a practical standpoint (i know that isn't army protocol but work with me) it is pretty big in terms of number of people jailed (lost money), the cost on the public health at large(lost money, increase in crime, loss of life), the cost of government enforcement of such laws, and the lost taxable revenue by keeping it illegal.
[/quote1244322215]
Dude [i]nothing[/i] about my job is 'standard Army protocol' (except for when I have to go to a bullshit 'big army' school like Warrior Leader Course).

I actually get paid to think, fukker.

I thought about everything you listed up there before I posted; it is an issue. It's one that needs to be fixed and it's [i]dumb[/i] that the political climate is such that it's going to go unfixed for some time to come.

[i]However,[/i] in the grand scheme of things everybody has much bigger fish to fry. It's a fact of life.

And in the meantime, people are dumb to risk incarceration over pot the same way I'd be dumb to risk incarceration over a bottle of whiskey back in the days of prohibition.

Jon, have you ever seen a glass half-full?

Yes, but the glass was full of urine.

[quote1244349624=Super Sonic]
Jon, have you ever seen a glass half-full?
[/quote1244349624]

of course.

what does that have to do with the reality of our political world?

i mean i know you'd rather just be a passive observer of everything that goes on around you and simply accept any shit you're fed but what does your simplistic "don't be a negative nancy" bullshit have to do with anything other than your inability to ignore my posts?

it's okay, you're a sheeple, i know it. just bleet somewhere else.

it's nothing really, you're just kind of being… a dick.

I mean, the guy hasn't been in the office that long, superpower or not, policy and diplomacy are delicate fields that require a great deal of fineness… what you have to remember is the guy is surrounded by people who are in power and change isn't really on the agenda for those who already have power…

as an american, I'm just glad he's repaired our foreign policy and sentiment as much as he has… sure, we've still got bigger fish to fry, but for such a short time that's a pretty big feat.

not only that, he's given the people at least an illusion of an america to believe in which is something we needed, patriotism has not been this celebrated here since the months after 9/11, and even though we're dealing with some real shit right now it's nice to see people with a renewed vision of america and a leader they feel they can stand behind and beside

[quote1244385356=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244322215=the unlucky platypus]
[quote1244321733=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244319429=madamadam]
In terms of the big issues (Marijuana)[/quote1244319429]
I almost blew snot all over my keyboard when I read this.
[/quote1244321733]

if you think about it from a practical standpoint (i know that isn't army protocol but work with me) it is pretty big in terms of number of people jailed (lost money), the cost on the public health at large(lost money, increase in crime, loss of life), the cost of government enforcement of such laws, and the lost taxable revenue by keeping it illegal.
[/quote1244322215]
Dude [i]nothing[/i] about my job is 'standard Army protocol' (except for when I have to go to a bullshit 'big army' school like Warrior Leader Course).

I actually get paid to think, fukker.

I thought about everything you listed up there before I posted; it is an issue. It's one that needs to be fixed and it's [i]dumb[/i] that the political climate is such that it's going to go unfixed for some time to come.

[i]However,[/i] in the grand scheme of things everybody has much bigger fish to fry. It's a fact of life.

And in the meantime, people are dumb to risk incarceration over pot the same way I'd be dumb to risk incarceration over a bottle of whiskey back in the days of prohibition.
[/quote1244385356]
I was half joking when I made that comment – obviously there are other important issues besides the legality of getting high, but let's be serious for a sec:
Some of the biggest industries reckon stand to lose a LOT to pot.
Alcohol companies fear it and fund anti-drug campaigns (ironic isn't it?), because there is a strong belief that legalised dope would mean lots of people would purchase a lot less alcohol. I'm only one guy, but I don't treat alcohol and dope as substitute goods (I think I'm a good example to use because I treat dope as though it were legal anyway – that is to say, my habits wouldn't change with legalisation). Although when I started smoking I did essentially stop drinking for about a year, these days I buy about as much alcohol as anyone else – so based on my experience, alcohol companies would see short-term losses, but in the long run they'd only see a small dip in income.
The pharmaceutical industry has a shitload of drugs on the market that could be replaced by high grade. The fact that dope is a plant and therefore not copyrightable means that legal pot would see a lot less people giving them money for things like painkillers or sleeping tablets. And yet they've released THC pills for chemo patients and they are currently looking into isolating CBD for use as an anti-psychotic amongst other things (that's right, dope comes with its own antidote in terms of making you crazy) but still lobby to keep it illegal by claiming that it's bad for you, without doing any objective, double-blind experiments no less. So, unlike the alcohol industry, the pharmaceutical industry would see long-term windfall losses.
The textile industry would be able to replace a lot of products with cheaply mass produced hemp (not the same as dope, but stupidly illegal for being the same plant). They'd lose a lot of revenue from the lower prices caused by both cheap materials and increased competition (there would surely be more suppliers in the hemp market because of its uses elsewhere – I'll come to this), however their production costs would also fall, but at the end of the day they'd have smaller profits presuming demand doesn't shoot up (which would be very unlikely) so in the long run they lose out again.
The hemp argument is massive so I'll just two major points and move on: It can be used for paper and biofuel (saving the trees and the seas). The paper market would lose revenue, but again save on production costs such as machinery, forest harvesting & replacement – overall though, much like with textiles, unless demand goes up they face a long-term decreased profit. Biofuel would lead to massively decreased costs for finding the stuff, but I have no clue how costly the conversion process is for biofuel so I'm not at liberty to say how their production costs change, still, it would be hard to imagine the fuel companies making as much as they do now.

All the above points seem to imply increased unemployment as these major industries lose money. It also implies a decrease in GDP meaning a decrease in the money passed down to workers and therefore a decrease in what they're willing to hand over to governments and so social unrest unless taxes are changed.

However there would be a need for workers at all the new hemp production facilities and at the new dope production facilities (pot requires a lot of care and attention so these places would require a fair bit of manual labour). This means that the production cost for dope would rise based on the US minimum wage (dope is produced very cheaply right now and faces a massive mark up upon introduction to western markets, but the workers aren't being paid as well as US workers) also there would be taxes on the stuff. The price relative to current prices would be roughly the same in my opinion (remember the huge mark up dope gets atm).

So in terms of GDP, it would decrease, however not drastically. Unemployment I imagine would level out. The Government would get a lot more in taxes allowing the GDP loss to be dealt with and balanced out by the Government.
Remember the social unrest I mentioned? That would never happen, in fact there would surely be a huge boost in government popularity as well as a lot less crime (partly due to less dope-based crime, partly due to police handling the other crimes they didn't deal with because they were too busy locking up stoners) and there'd be less drunken mayhem in the short term, and maybe in the long run as well (based on my belief that people would be more responsible with consumption decisions put into their hands rather than having the Government tell them to stay away from pot, leading to a more responsible drinking attitude as well – this would be a massive improvement for the UK, I dunno how the US fares with drunks).

the for-profit prison industry is one of the biggest benefactors of the war on drugs along with the CIA and local police forces (who end up getting weapons upgrades when you're closer to the fight like in arizona).

[quote1244399382=Sonic Libido]
it's nothing really, you're just kind of being… a dick.
[/quote1244399382]

you're just being a pussy because it's your guy who's catching the slack now instead of the repubs.

the thing you fail to realize is that it's all a puppet show.

and how has he repaired foreign policy? by saying some nice words and doing nothing?

i swear it's almost like they knew obama was coming in so they got netinyahu in power over in israel to keep things moving "forward".

[quote1244418227=madamadam]
I was half joking when I made that comment – obviously there are other important issues besides the legality of getting high, but let's be serious for a sec:
Some of the biggest industries reckon stand to lose a LOT to pot.
Alcohol companies fear it and fund anti-drug campaigns (ironic isn't it?), because there is a strong belief that legalised dope would mean lots of people would purchase a lot less alcohol.[/quote1244418227]
Well, isn't it (conversely) just another product that the alcohol (and tobacco) industries already have the infrastructure and audiences to market to?

[quote1244418227=madamadam]The pharmaceutical industry has a shitload of drugs on the market that could be replaced by high grade. The fact that dope is a plant and therefore not copyrightable means that legal pot would see a lot less people giving them money for things like painkillers or sleeping tablets.[/quote1244418227]
Ahhh… Aspirin comes from a plant. A lot of other medications come from plants. Drug companies seem to have no problem at all marketing and profiting greatly from these products so why should cannabis related products be any different?

[quote1244418227=madamadam]The textile industry would be able to replace a lot of products with cheaply mass produced hemp (not the same as dope, but stupidly illegal for being the same plant). They'd lose a lot of revenue from the lower prices caused by both cheap materials and increased competition (there would surely be more suppliers in the hemp market because of its uses elsewhere – I'll come to this), however their production costs would also fall, but at the end of the day they'd have smaller profits presuming demand doesn't shoot up (which would be very unlikely) so in the long run they lose out again.[/quote1244418227]
Have you ever noticed that when oil prices drop gas prices don't (or don't drop as much as oil prices)? How about when a government passes legislation that saves insurance companies money (like seatbelt laws) that insurance companies still charge the same amount of money for their life insurance and automotive policies?

Dude, cheaper raw materials is not a death knell for these industries, [i]it's extra money in their pockets.[/i] If hemp does exactly what you say it does, they can drop their prices on certain products and still take home more money at the end of the day and you bet your ass that's what they're going to do if that particular resource is opened up to them.

Hell, they can [i]then[/i] turn around and market say wood-pulp based paper or cotton fabric as [i]luxury commodities[/i] and make more money on that end as well.

When I worked in printing, I got to deal with paper companies and their representatives quite a bit. Recycled paper costs them significantly more money to produce and creates a lot more hazmat issues that costs them money as well; all they do is pass those costs onto the consumer and they're happy to do it because the consumer is ignorant and happy to pay for it. These people are not going to lose money because of hemp; they're going to find a way to make [i]more[/i] money off of it.

[quote1244428992=Frag Magnet]
Well, isn't it (conversely) just another product that the alcohol (and tobacco) industries already have the infrastructure and audiences to market to?[/quote1244428992]
It's not like they'd be selling the stuff. They worry that legalised dope would cut into their profits, and so they do what they can to prevent it – partnership for a drug free America was funded by alcohol [i]and[/i] tobacco companies until 1997 when controversy got the better of them. My point is that they are right. In the short term. It's just like prohibition where the big fear was that everyone would start drinking non stop. Alcohol sales rocketed, then levelled out. My argument is that a similar thing would happen with marijuana consumption, inversely affecting alcohol in the short run. I can imagine tobacco companies losing out a lot in America where the tradition is to roll without it. In England they'd probably gain more income unless the price of legal weed made smoking pures affordable and if doing so caught on.

[quote1244428992=Frag Magnet]
Ahhh… Aspirin comes from a plant. A lot of other medications come from plants. Drug companies seem to have no problem at all marketing and profiting greatly from these products so why should cannabis related products be any different?[/quote1244428992]
Do you see people smoking the plant aspirin comes from every day? (Wikipedia tells me that plant is willow bark so I'll go ahead and answer that for you: no, Adam, I don't) The only times I ever feel the need to use painkillers is when I have a cold and therefore haven't been in the mood for a spliff. I imagine a similar thing can be said for most other regular smokers. With legalisation I can imagine plenty more people having a sneaky spliff to deal with the odd stomach ache or headache or what have you. I'm not saying [i]everyone[/i] would, but a significant enough amount for pharmaceutical companies to worry about would. Same goes for sleeping tablets and a variety of other treatments. The pharmaceutical companies would no doubt produce products based on chemicals found within cannabis, but the actual plant itself would gain a lot of popularity. The plant itself is what they can't patent. Remember how I said that alcohol and tobacco industries funded PFDA until '97? Pharmaceutical companies still do.

[quote1244428992=Frag Magnet]
Have you ever noticed that when oil prices drop gas prices don't (or don't drop as much as oil prices)? How about when a government passes legislation that saves insurance companies money (like seatbelt laws) that insurance companies still charge the same amount of money for their life insurance and automotive policies?

Dude, cheaper raw materials is not a death knell for these industries, [i]it's extra money in their pockets.[/i] If hemp does exactly what you say it does, they can drop their prices on certain products and still take home more money at the end of the day and you bet your ass that's what they're going to do if that particular resource is opened up to them.

Hell, they can [i]then[/i] turn around and market say wood-pulp based paper or cotton fabric as [i]luxury commodities[/i] and make more money on that end as well.

When I worked in printing, I got to deal with paper companies and their representatives quite a bit. Recycled paper costs them significantly more money to produce and creates a lot more hazmat issues that costs them money as well; all they do is pass those costs onto the consumer and they're happy to do it because the consumer is ignorant and happy to pay for it. These people are not going to lose money because of hemp; they're going to find a way to make [i]more[/i] money off of it.[/quote1244428992]
That's how they deal with [i]increased[/i] production cost. Of course they're gonna pass the cost on to consumers. When they're paying less to produce, the price of the good invariably falls because of basic competition laws: Company A and company B are each paying €30 per unit of whatever good they both produce, and they both charge €60 per unit. If company A decides to start charging €55, customers will start buying from A instead of B, ceteris paribus. So company B [i]has[/i] to start charging €55 as well or else they will lose all their customers. Let's say hemp is legalised and production costs fall to €25. Once again, company A can afford to lower their price, this time to €50 in an attempt to grab some more quick cash from the market. Once again B stands to lose out unless they too lower their price to €50, restoring the market equilibrium.
Obviously those figures are just examples and the respective companies in this case are no worse asides from the size of their gross income being smaller. The popular belief is that with extra competition opening up due to many markets suddenly becoming cheaper to compete in, lots of industries would see average profits drop as there would be more companies trying to undercut each other.
The paper industry was admittedly a bad example in this instance as paper already costs us pittance and so cheaper prices are unlikely to make you want more paper – but there is a very good environmentalist argument for the legalisation of weed there.

[quote1244461248=madamadam]
[quote1244428992=Frag Magnet]
Well, isn't it (conversely) just another product that the alcohol (and tobacco) industries already have the infrastructure and audiences to market to?[/quote1244428992]
It's not like they'd be selling the stuff. They worry that legalised dope would cut into their profits, and so they do what they can to prevent it – partnership for a drug free America was funded by alcohol [i]and[/i] tobacco companies until 1997 when controversy got the better of them. My point is that they are right. In the short term. It's just like prohibition where the big fear was that everyone would start drinking non stop. Alcohol sales rocketed, then levelled out.[/quote1244461248]
Yeah, but let's face facts – virtually [i]nobody[/i] refrains from smoking weed because it's illegal (which is as much of a reason to do away with the prohibition as any). Yeah, if it gets legalized pot smokers are initially going to smoke a fuck-ton of it. But the numbers of people who smoke pot [i]instead[/i] of drinking are going to be virtually negligible because you basically have three different groups of people here: Those who smoke, those who don't want to and those who quit because they got bored with it a long time ago.

Also, it's just as easy to say that the Alcohol and Tobacco companies contributed to the Partnership for a Drug Free America because they thought it would be good PR (up until the point it broke bad).

[quote1244461248=madamadam]I can imagine tobacco companies losing out a lot in America where the tradition is to roll without it.[/quote1244461248]
Why?

They're two different drugs; one can smoke all the pot in the world yet a [tobacco] smoker's body will still fiend for nicotine (maybe not in the moment, but definitely later). I have a lot of friends who smoke both, never have I seen them forgo one for the other.

All that said, let's assume for a moment that you're right (which you're not, but this is a big circle-jerk anyway, so what the Hell):

If legalized marijuana would seriously offset the profits of the alcohol and/or tobacco industries, wouldn't it make good business sense for both to field marijuana-based products? At the very least, it would cushion the initial blow and would certainly maximize their long-term profits. I think it's much more likely that it would be a boon for whoever had the sense to jump on board early and quickly establish brand recognition.

[quote1244461248=madamadam][quote1244428992=Frag Magnet]
Ahhh… Aspirin comes from a plant. A lot of other medications come from plants. Drug companies seem to have no problem at all marketing and profiting greatly from these products so why should cannabis related products be any different?[/quote1244428992]
Do you see people smoking the plant aspirin comes from every day? (Wikipedia tells me that plant is willow bark so I'll go ahead and answer that for you: no, Adam, I don't) The only times I ever feel the need to use painkillers is when I have a cold and therefore haven't been in the mood for a spliff. I imagine a similar thing can be said for most other regular smokers. With legalisation I can imagine plenty more people having a sneaky spliff to deal with the odd stomach ache or headache or what have you.[/quote1244461248]
Except that [i]most[/i] people – [u]if[/u] they're going to use a pot-derived pain killer – aren't going to want their whole goddamn house/apartment/office/whatever to smell like a Primus concert. They're going to want to take that medication in pill form or by some other quick, easy, non-stinky means of consumption and [i]that's[/i] where the drug companies come in.

You have to remember, many people (myself included) don't smoke [i]anything.[/i] Let's assume for a moment that marijuana is legal, I'm in enough pain that I feel I need to take something for it, and that pot is distributed in the "leafy" form we currently find it in: Do you honestly think that I'm going to chose to choke down a joint (or go to the trouble of making brownies or something) vs. taking an ibuprofen and being done with it in a matter of minutes?

As a general rule people are [b]lazy[/b]. If it costs $.50 to make something ourselves, most people will spend $5.00 to have it done for us.

[quote1244461248=madamadam][quote1244428992=Frag Magnet]
Have you ever noticed that when oil prices drop gas prices don't (or don't drop as much as oil prices)? How about when a government passes legislation that saves insurance companies money (like seatbelt laws) that insurance companies still charge the same amount of money for their life insurance and automotive policies?

Dude, cheaper raw materials is not a death knell for these industries, [i]it's extra money in their pockets.[/i] If hemp does exactly what you say it does, they can drop their prices on certain products and still take home more money at the end of the day and you bet your ass that's what they're going to do if that particular resource is opened up to them.

Hell, they can [i]then[/i] turn around and market say wood-pulp based paper or cotton fabric as [i]luxury commodities[/i] and make more money on that end as well.

When I worked in printing, I got to deal with paper companies and their representatives quite a bit. Recycled paper costs them significantly more money to produce and creates a lot more hazmat issues that costs them money as well; all they do is pass those costs onto the consumer and they're happy to do it because the consumer is ignorant and happy to pay for it. These people are not going to lose money because of hemp; they're going to find a way to make [i]more[/i] money off of it.[/quote1244428992]
That's how they deal with [i]increased[/i] production cost. Of course they're gonna pass the cost on to consumers. When they're paying less to produce, the price of the good invariably falls because of basic competition laws…[/quote1244461248]
Re-read my example of gasoline prices and insurance premiums then get back to me.

Your 'basic competition laws' go right out the window when Companies A, B and C [i]talk to each other[/i] to ensure that they can all take home higher profits at the expense of the consumer.

[quote1244461248=madamadam]The paper industry was admittedly a bad example in this instance as paper already costs us pittance and so cheaper prices are unlikely to make you want more paper – but there is a very good environmentalist argument for the legalisation of weed there.[/quote1244461248]
No, there isn't.

The fact of the matter is that the more we demand wood-derived products here in the Western world, the more trees get planted to ensure that there will be trees to cut in the future.

Tree loss is only a problem in the Third World where the trees are in fact being cut [i]to make room for farm land.[/i]

I can see you're so entrenched in your own bullshit (or someone else's) that we'll never see eye to eye on this, but hey – I have revision that I'm trying to avoid, so let's do this:
[quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]
Yeah, but let's face facts – virtually [i]nobody[/i] refrains from smoking weed because it's illegal (which is as much of a reason to do away with the prohibition as any). Yeah, if it gets legalized pot smokers are initially going to smoke a fuck-ton of it. But the numbers of people who smoke pot [i]instead[/i] of drinking are going to be virtually negligible because you basically have three different groups of people here: Those who smoke, those who don't want to and those who quit because they got bored with it a long time ago.

Also, it's just as easy to say that the Alcohol and Tobacco companies contributed to the Partnership for a Drug Free America because they thought it would be good PR (up until the point it broke bad).[/quote1244474662]
So you've never met anyone who wouldn't mind the odd weekend spliff but grew up a while ago and is unwilling to reinvolve themselves with dodgy drug-dealer types? I've heard variations of this opinion from a fair amount of 30-somethings and older. (Obviously I don't have the market research to back this up, just another problem with it being illegal.)

I honestly believe that overall use in the long run would stay the same or even dwindle as rebellious youths lost the cool factor and as people became more informed and sensible (like in Holland). Fact is; legal weed [i]will[/i] be a novelty at first and people [i]will[/i] be throwing a lot of dope-based parties and not drinking so much, at first anyway.

[quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]
Why?

They're two different drugs; one can smoke all the pot in the world yet a [tobacco] smoker's body will still fiend for nicotine (maybe not in the moment, but definitely later). I have a lot of friends who smoke both, never have I seen them forgo one for the other.

All that said, let's assume for a moment that you're right (which you're not, but this is a big circle-jerk anyway, so what the Hell):

If legalized marijuana would seriously offset the profits of the alcohol and/or tobacco industries, wouldn't it make good business sense for both to field marijuana-based products? At the very least, it would cushion the initial blow and would certainly maximize their long-term profits. I think it's much more likely that it would be a boon for whoever had the sense to jump on board early and quickly establish brand recognition.[/quote1244474662]
What about the (many) smokers like me who only use tobacco out of a necessity to make their money last? Obviously it depends entirely on the cost of legal weed, but I think it's a valid point.
I agree with you on the benefits of investing in it if it were legalised. It's yet another reason why I simply can't understand its illegal status. Of course there's always the argument that not everyone can invest in it or else it would become a profitless venture. Maybe they don't want the risk of a wasted investment? I honestly don't know.

[quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]Except that [i]most[/i] people – [u]if[/u] they're going to use a pot-derived pain killer – aren't going to want their whole goddamn house/apartment/office/whatever to smell like a Primus concert. They're going to want to take that medication in pill form or by some other quick, easy, non-stinky means of consumption and [i]that's[/i] where the drug companies come in.

You have to remember, many people (myself included) don't smoke [i]anything.[/i] Let's assume for a moment that marijuana is legal, I'm in enough pain that I feel I need to take something for it, and that pot is distributed in the "leafy" form we currently find it in: Do you honestly think that I'm going to chose to choke down a joint (or go to the trouble of making brownies or something) vs. taking an ibuprofen and being done with it in a matter of minutes?

As a general rule people are [b]lazy[/b]. If it costs $.50 to make something ourselves, most people will spend $5.00 to have it done for us.[/quote1244474662]
Sure, you're right, there's a large portion of the market that would remain stuck in their ways – particularly in places like America and England where nationalism is an eyesore on the political landscape and people refuse to be associated with those damn hippies, but I digress; there will also be a large amount of people who, if weed was easily available, would have no problem going for a spliff – what about all the smokers who don't smoke weed atm? What about the 30-somethings I mentioned earlier? Also: who's forcing you to smoke your spliffs inside? Go into the garden if you don't want the house to smell – you [i]can[/i] think that far ahead surely?

[quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]]
Re-read my example of gasoline prices and insurance premiums then get back to me.

Your 'basic competition laws' go right out the window when Companies A, B and C [i]talk to each other[/i] to ensure that they can all take home higher profits at the expense of the consumer.[/quote1244474662]
OPEC can get away with collusion, but in western economies there are market watchdogs for all aspects of the economy to ensure that the tenets of competition are adhered to. Stop being obtuse, you know this.

[quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]]
No, there isn't.

The fact of the matter is that the more we demand wood-derived products here in the Western world, the more trees get planted to ensure that there will be trees to cut in the future.

Tree loss is only a problem in the Third World where the trees are in fact being cut [i]to make room for farm land.[/i]
[/quote1244474662]
That's a good point you make there.
But [i]you're[/i] [link=http://hempglobalsolutions.com/science2.php]the one who's wrong[/link].

If we look at marijuana's illegal status with any form of logic, it's completely absurd – there are a [i]lot[/i] of voters who agree with me.

I don't feel like explaining my standpoint, simply because I'm tired of explaining. I'll just say that I hate the guy and everything he represents. I don't view him as the president of the country I live in. I don't even acknowledge him as a president.

Whyyyyyyyyyyy?

[quote1244500139=madamadam]
I can see you're so entrenched in your own bullshit (or someone else's) that we'll never see eye to eye on this, but hey – I have revision that I'm trying to avoid, so let's do this:[/quote1244500139]
Woah, woah, wait – you're suggesting that I'm 'entrenched in my own bullshit' as if the exact opposite couldn't [i]possibly[/i] be the truth…

Wow.

[quote1244500139=madamadam][quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]
Yeah, but let's face facts – virtually [i]nobody[/i] refrains from smoking weed because it's illegal (which is as much of a reason to do away with the prohibition as any). Yeah, if it gets legalized pot smokers are initially going to smoke a fuck-ton of it. But the numbers of people who smoke pot [i]instead[/i] of drinking are going to be virtually negligible because you basically have three different groups of people here: Those who smoke, those who don't want to and those who quit because they got bored with it a long time ago.

Also, it's just as easy to say that the Alcohol and Tobacco companies contributed to the Partnership for a Drug Free America because they thought it would be good PR (up until the point it broke bad).[/quote1244474662]
So you've never met anyone who wouldn't mind the odd weekend spliff but grew up a while ago and is unwilling to reinvolve themselves with dodgy drug-dealer types? I've heard variations of this opinion from a fair amount of 30-somethings and older. (Obviously I don't have the market research to back this up, just another problem with it being illegal.)

I honestly believe that overall use in the long run would stay the same or even dwindle as rebellious youths lost the cool factor and as people became more informed and sensible (like in Holland). Fact is; legal weed [i]will[/i] be a novelty at first and people [i]will[/i] be throwing a lot of dope-based parties and not drinking so much, at first anyway.[/quote1244500139]
At the parties I went to growing up, drinking and pot (and cigarettes) all went hand in hand. And believe me, pot was in abundance.

I see absolutely no reason for alcohol OR tobacco sales to suffer any significant disturbance (especially in the long-term) should pot become legalized (especially given the pattern of people 'growing out of pot' in their mid-late 20's around here).

[quote1244500139=madamadam][quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]
Why?

They're two different drugs; one can smoke all the pot in the world yet a [tobacco] smoker's body will still fiend for nicotine (maybe not in the moment, but definitely later). I have a lot of friends who smoke both, never have I seen them forgo one for the other.

All that said, let's assume for a moment that you're right (which you're not, but this is a big circle-jerk anyway, so what the Hell):

If legalized marijuana would seriously offset the profits of the alcohol and/or tobacco industries, wouldn't it make good business sense for both to field marijuana-based products? At the very least, it would cushion the initial blow and would certainly maximize their long-term profits. I think it's much more likely that it would be a boon for whoever had the sense to jump on board early and quickly establish brand recognition.[/quote1244474662]
What about the (many) smokers like me who only use tobacco out of a necessity to make their money last? Obviously it depends entirely on the cost of legal weed, but I think it's a valid point.[/quote1244500139]
Depending on what quality you prefer to smoke, I'm pretty sure pot is cheaper than tobacco here, man (you'd have to check with those who actually smoke, though). Either way, tobacco prices are becoming more and more outlandish due to heavy taxation and (while I've heard of it being done in Europe), I've never, ever, EVER seen anybody in the US cut marijuana with tobacco. Maybe it's an American social tick – I really don't know for sure – but I've never heard about it being done here.

[quote1244500139=madamadam]I agree with you on the benefits of investing in it if it were legalised. It's yet another reason why I simply can't understand its illegal status. Of course there's always the argument that not everyone can invest in it or else it would become a profitless venture. Maybe they don't want the risk of a wasted investment? I honestly don't know.[/quote1244500139]
It's because at this point, it has nothing to do with business sense or who stands to lose or gain money, it's been reduced to pure dogmatic law. "Marijuana is [i]bad.[/i]" The people who want to keep it illegal put no more thought at all into it.

[quote1244500139=madamadam][quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]Except that [i]most[/i] people – [u]if[/u] they're going to use a pot-derived pain killer – aren't going to want their whole goddamn house/apartment/office/whatever to smell like a Primus concert. They're going to want to take that medication in pill form or by some other quick, easy, non-stinky means of consumption and [i]that's[/i] where the drug companies come in.

You have to remember, many people (myself included) don't smoke [i]anything.[/i] Let's assume for a moment that marijuana is legal, I'm in enough pain that I feel I need to take something for it, and that pot is distributed in the "leafy" form we currently find it in: Do you honestly think that I'm going to chose to choke down a joint (or go to the trouble of making brownies or something) vs. taking an ibuprofen and being done with it in a matter of minutes?

As a general rule people are [b]lazy[/b]. If it costs $.50 to make something ourselves, most people will spend $5.00 to have it done for us.[/quote1244474662]
Sure, you're right, there's a large portion of the market that would remain stuck in their ways – particularly in places like America and England where nationalism is an eyesore on the political landscape and people refuse to be associated with those damn hippies…[/quote1244500139]
How about you spend some time here traveling from state to state to state and THEN talk shit? For somebody who started off by accusing somebody else of viewing the world with prejudice, you sure are quick to do it yourself.

I'm from Vermont.

[i]I grew up with hippies.[/i]

Pot was usually easier for my classmates to get than beer OR cigarettes because several of our classmates [i]grew it themselves.[/i]

Even as I've moved around the country and met people from all over the world, I find myself in a very small minority of people who have never smoked pot – it's not that I have something against it, I'm just not interested.

Regardless of the media portrayal or the polls throw around in our faces (which are easily manipulated), I do not believe that most Americans have a problem with pot being legalized. That said, only a small portion of the population [i]passionately[/i] wants to see it legalized; most of us really just don't care.

Now, the point I was making was not that I won't used a marijuana-based medication (because if it's legal and it works, you bet your ass I will). The point I was making is that there's no way in Hell I'm [i]smoking[/i] pot or going through any sort of process to extract the THC from the leaf and then ingest it if there's a pill I can take that will do the same thing (even if not as well and/or as cheaply).

Joints because I'm a non-smoker and other methods because I have better shit to do with my time.

Read.

Comprehend.

Understand.

THEN reply.

[quote1244500139=madamadam][quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]]
Re-read my example of gasoline prices and insurance premiums then get back to me.

Your 'basic competition laws' go right out the window when Companies A, B and C [i]talk to each other[/i] to ensure that they can all take home higher profits at the expense of the consumer.[/quote1244474662]
OPEC can get away with collusion, but in western economies there are market watchdogs for all aspects of the economy to ensure that the tenets of competition are adhered to. Stop being obtuse, you know this.[/quote1244500139]
I'm not talking about OPEC. OPEC cooperates to set the price of oil.

What I'm talking about is oil prices fall [i]but gasoline prices don't fall as much.[/i] That's not OPEC, that's Exon/Mobil and the other big [i]gasoline[/i] companies cooperating to increase their own profits.

As well as that, insurance companies are notorious for lobbying state and federal legislative bodies to pass this law or that which forces people do act in ways that would reduce the payouts that insurance companies have to make (ie: mandatory seatbelt use).

HOWEVER, once these laws are passed and fewer people are getting killed or hurt as badly as before, [i]insurance premiums stay the same.[/i] People who work in the Insurance industry have told me about this.

[quote1244500139=madamadam][quote1244474662=Frag Magnet]]
No, there isn't.

The fact of the matter is that the more we demand wood-derived products here in the Western world, the more trees get planted to ensure that there will be trees to cut in the future.

Tree loss is only a problem in the Third World where the trees are in fact being cut [i]to make room for farm land.[/i]
[/quote1244474662]
That's a good point you make there.
But [i]you're[/i] [link=http://hempglobalsolutions.com/science2.php]the one who's wrong[/link].[/quote1244500139]
OK, you're getting your info from a pro-hemp organization and you're not thinking for a single moment that the information [i]might[/i] be skewed?

Are you shitting me!?

Do you ever, at any point think critically of your own opinions? Seriously.

You seem to have this idea in your head that my beliefs were dictated to me. The truth is that before I take a stance, I've thought about it from as many points of view as I possibly can, I've argued them all with myself and then when an idea or a set of ideas 'wins,' that's what I go with (until better evidence or arguments prove me wrong).

Now, to the point at hand…

Personally, I'm going by what a Greenpeace co-founder (who looks like he's smoked a joint or two [hundred] in his day) and [url=http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244502729&sr=8-1]this guy[/url] have to say on the issue of deforestation.

They have some pretty substantial and thorough numbers on their side.

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244500139=madamadam]
I can see you're so entrenched in your own bullshit (or someone else's) that we'll never see eye to eye on this, but hey – I have revision that I'm trying to avoid, so let's do this:[/quote1244500139]
Woah, woah, wait – you're suggesting that I'm 'entrenched in my own bullshit' as if the exact opposite couldn't [i]possibly[/i] be the truth…

Wow.[/quote1244512115]
I knew that would get you pissed, it's the only reason I said it.

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
At the parties I went to growing up, drinking and pot (and cigarettes) all went hand in hand. And believe me, pot was in abundance.

I see absolutely no reason for alcohol OR tobacco sales to suffer any significant disturbance (especially in the long-term) should pot become legalized (especially given the pattern of people 'growing out of pot' in their mid-late 20's around here).[/quote1244512115]
So we agree on this. You even used my point about people growing out of it. Ironically, a few lines later you're telling [i]me[/i] to[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet] Read. Comprehend. Understand. THEN reply.[/quote1244512115]

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]Depending on what quality you prefer to smoke, I'm pretty sure pot is cheaper than tobacco here, man (you'd have to check with those who actually smoke, though). Either way, tobacco prices are becoming more and more outlandish due to heavy taxation and (while I've heard of it being done in Europe), I've never, ever, EVER seen anybody in the US cut marijuana with tobacco. Maybe it's an American social tick – I really don't know for sure – but I've never heard about it being done here.[/quote1244512115]
Maybe you're right, my point still stands for Europe though.

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]It's because at this point, it has nothing to do with business sense or who stands to lose or gain money, it's been reduced to pure dogmatic law. "Marijuana is [i]bad.[/i]" The people who want to keep it illegal put no more thought at all into it.[/quote1244512115]
Another point we can agree on. I like where this is going…

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
How about you spend some time here traveling from state to state to state and THEN talk shit? For somebody who started off by accusing somebody else of viewing the world with prejudice, you sure are quick to do it yourself.

I'm from Vermont.

[i]I grew up with hippies.[/i]

Pot was usually easier for my classmates to get than beer OR cigarettes because several of our classmates [i]grew it themselves.[/i]

Even as I've moved around the country and met people from all over the world, I find myself in a very small minority of people who have never smoked pot – it's not that I have something against it, I'm just not interested.

Regardless of the media portrayal or the polls throw around in our faces (which are easily manipulated), I do not believe that most Americans have a problem with pot being legalized. That said, only a small portion of the population [i]passionately[/i] wants to see it legalized; most of us really just don't care.

Now, the point I was making was not that I won't used a marijuana-based medication (because if it's legal and it works, you bet your ass I will). The point I was making is that there's no way in Hell I'm [i]smoking[/i] pot or going through any sort of process to extract the THC from the leaf and then ingest it if there's a pill I can take that will do the same thing (even if not as well and/or as cheaply).

Joints because I'm a non-smoker and other methods because I have better shit to do with my time.
[/quote1244512115]
Oh don't be such a girl, I wasn't talking about you (although the fact that you lumped yourself in there says a lot). I didn't even say most people have a problem with it, who's posts are you reading?
Heck, I'm barely disagreeing with you… To save you scrolling back up I'll restate what you seem to have completely glossed over:
"There will also be a large amount of people who, if weed was easily available, would have no problem going for a spliff – what about all the smokers who don't smoke weed atm? What about the 30-somethings I mentioned earlier?"
Implicit in this is that some people would change their view of weed were it to be legalised, and lots would simply do what they do now, but with the law on their side for once. Obviously I don't believe people are going to think that spliffs are some kind of super medicine, but I stand by my point. The fact that pharmaceutical companies defy all research and lobby to keep it illegal speaks volumes.

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
I'm not talking about OPEC. OPEC cooperates to set the price of oil.

What I'm talking about is oil prices fall [i]but gasoline prices don't fall as much.[/i] That's not OPEC, that's Exon/Mobil and the other big [i]gasoline[/i] companies cooperating to increase their own profits.

As well as that, insurance companies are notorious for lobbying state and federal legislative bodies to pass this law or that which forces people do act in ways that would reduce the payouts that insurance companies have to make (ie: mandatory seatbelt use).

HOWEVER, once these laws are passed and fewer people are getting killed or hurt as badly as before, [i]insurance premiums stay the same.[/i] People who work in the Insurance industry have told me about this.[/quote1244512115]
I see what you're trying to say, but insurance is a special industry whose mechanics would be very difficult to map onto others.
As for the gasoline companies – the gasoline market is an oligopoly, and a ridiculously powerful one at that so it isn't surprising, nor is it news, that they have the sway to make certain people look the other way.
The industries hemp would affect are, for instance, the clothing industry, the cosmetics industry, the god-damn loo roll industry. Not only are these industries nowhere near as politically influential as the gas companies, they also have a much larger marketplace to deal with making collusion damn-near impossible, even if they wanted to.
I'll believe that the clothing industry has the power to collude and get away with it the day I see Derek Zoolander on the cover of Time Magazine.

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
OK, you're getting your info from a pro-hemp organization and you're not thinking for a single moment that the information [i]might[/i] be skewed?

Are you shitting me!?

Do you ever, at any point think critically of your own opinions? Seriously.

You seem to have this idea in your head that my beliefs were dictated to me. The truth is that before I take a stance, I've thought about it from as many points of view as I possibly can, I've argued them all with myself and then when an idea or a set of ideas 'wins,' that's what I go with (until better evidence or arguments prove me wrong).[/quote1244512115]
LOLlerskates!
Thinking isn't as hard to do as you make it sound. We have different opinions, don't get so antsy about it.

[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]Now, to the point at hand…

Personally, I'm going by what a Greenpeace co-founder (who looks like he's smoked a joint or two [hundred] in his day) and [url=http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244502729&sr=8-1]this guy[/url] have to say on the issue of deforestation.

They have some pretty substantial and thorough numbers on their side.
[/quote1244512115]
That's great and all, but there's no information there, other than that you read a book. Great job, Buddy!
But seriously, the website I linked you to isn't some pothead collaboration – oh wait, no it probably is.
That doesn't mean that they're [i]wrong[/i].
If you wanna retort with that book up there, find me the bits where they contradict the website and cite them. Don't just go "ooh look at me with my marvellous thinking brain, I read a book! That makes me right and you wrong!"
It just comes off as retarded.

I kinda see why you're in the army now.

I do Not Smoke Pot, But I think it Should be Legal.

I think it would gain untaped tax revenue.

I think we'd gain back some cash from not continuing to fill our prisons with people who just want to chill at home and get blitzed on their own time.

sure, there should be an age limit and laws against smoking in public and in restaurants and schools, but we have those in place for tobacco so I can't imagine it'd be that hard to put in to place.

alcohol is much worse and it's perfectly legal, the logic just seems to crumble there.

Guys, stop arguing!

This NEVER would have happened if RBF made a good album!

[quote1244532503=Desensitized]
Guys, stop arguing!

This NEVER would have happened if RBF made a good album!
[/quote1244532503]
!lol

[quote1244534923=Sonic Libido]
it's nothing really, you're just kind of being… a dick.

I mean, the guy hasn't been in the office that long, superpower or not, policy and diplomacy are delicate fields that require a great deal of fineness… what you have to remember is the guy is surrounded by people who are in power and change isn't really on the agenda for those who already have power…

as an american, I'm just glad he's repaired our foreign policy and sentiment as much as he has… sure, we've still got bigger fish to fry, but for such a short time that's a pretty big feat.

not only that, he's given the people at least an illusion of an america to believe in which is something we needed, patriotism has not been this celebrated here since the months after 9/11, and even though we're dealing with some real shit right now it's nice to see people with a renewed vision of america and a leader they feel they can stand behind and beside
[/quote1244534923]

I completely agree with that.

Seriously, it's been 4 months. Do you know how long it would take someone to really implement any change at a big company like Wal*Mart? We couldn't all of a sudden push in a new CEO and expect him to make Wal*Mart a better company.

I think he's been focusing on the things that need to be focused on. I got a job managing a gym right after the last guy totally fucked it up. I spent about 3 or 4 months just getting things completely back to normal. Why should we expect anything more for the President?

[quote1244534923=Sonic Libido]
it's nothing really, you're just kind of being… a dick.

I mean, the guy hasn't been in the office that long, superpower or not, policy and diplomacy are delicate fields that require a great deal of fineness… what you have to remember is the guy is surrounded by people who are in power and change isn't really on the agenda for those who already have power…

as an american, I'm just glad he's repaired our foreign policy and sentiment as much as he has… sure, we've still got bigger fish to fry, but for such a short time that's a pretty big feat.

not only that, he's given the people at least an illusion of an america to believe in which is something we needed, patriotism has not been this celebrated here since the months after 9/11, and even though we're dealing with some real shit right now it's nice to see people with a renewed vision of america and a leader they feel they can stand behind and beside
[/quote1244534923]

I completely agree with that.

Seriously, it's been 4 months. Do you know how long it would take someone to really implement any change at a big company like Wal*Mart? We couldn't all of a sudden push in a new CEO and expect him to make Wal*Mart a better company.

I think he's been focusing on the things that need to be focused on. I got a job managing a gym right after the last guy totally fucked it up. I spent about 3 or 4 months just getting things completely back to normal. Why should we expect anything more for the President?

It took Bush at least 8 months to completely fuck this country.

[quote1244572488=madamadam]
[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244500139=madamadam]
I can see you're so entrenched in your own bullshit (or someone else's) that we'll never see eye to eye on this, but hey – I have revision that I'm trying to avoid, so let's do this:[/quote1244500139]
Woah, woah, wait – you're suggesting that I'm 'entrenched in my own bullshit' as if the exact opposite couldn't [i]possibly[/i] be the truth…

Wow.[/quote1244512115]
I knew that would get you pissed, it's the only reason I said it.[/quote1244572488]
Pissed – no. I'd have to [i]care[/i] about you for you to piss me off.

It did however strike me as hypocritical so I said something.

I do that a lot.

[quote1244572488=madamadam][quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
At the parties I went to growing up, drinking and pot (and cigarettes) all went hand in hand. And believe me, pot was in abundance.

I see absolutely no reason for alcohol OR tobacco sales to suffer any significant disturbance (especially in the long-term) should pot become legalized (especially given the pattern of people 'growing out of pot' in their mid-late 20's around here).[/quote1244512115]
So we agree on this. You even used my point about people growing out of it. Ironically, a few lines later you're telling [i]me[/i] to[quote1244512115=Frag Magnet] Read. Comprehend. Understand. THEN reply.[/quote1244512115]
Then why all the prophesies of doom and gloom for big business that you were espousing towards the beginning of this thread?

Does big business have nothing to fear from legalized marijuana or are their corporate towers going to come crashing down, thus prompting them into some massive conspiracy to keep the 14-year-old's drug of choice illegal? Which is it?

[quote1244572488=madamadam][quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
How about you spend some time here traveling from state to state to state and THEN talk shit? For somebody who started off by accusing somebody else of viewing the world with prejudice, you sure are quick to do it yourself.

I'm from Vermont.

[i]I grew up with hippies.[/i]

Pot was usually easier for my classmates to get than beer OR cigarettes because several of our classmates [i]grew it themselves.[/i]

Even as I've moved around the country and met people from all over the world, I find myself in a very small minority of people who have never smoked pot – it's not that I have something against it, I'm just not interested.

Regardless of the media portrayal or the polls throw around in our faces (which are easily manipulated), I do not believe that most Americans have a problem with pot being legalized. That said, only a small portion of the population [i]passionately[/i] wants to see it legalized; most of us really just don't care.

Now, the point I was making was not that I won't used a marijuana-based medication (because if it's legal and it works, you bet your ass I will). The point I was making is that there's no way in Hell I'm [i]smoking[/i] pot or going through any sort of process to extract the THC from the leaf and then ingest it if there's a pill I can take that will do the same thing (even if not as well and/or as cheaply).

Joints because I'm a non-smoker and other methods because I have better shit to do with my time.
[/quote1244512115]
Oh don't be such a girl, I wasn't talking about you (although the fact that you lumped yourself in there says a lot).[/quote1244572488]
I used me as an example to point out that a lot of people aren't going start smoking, go wandering into their attic to try and find their bong that they haven't touched in 15 years or make a batch of brownies, etc to cure a headache.

[i]THUS[/i] there is a legitimate market for pharmaceutical companies to sell marijuana-based medicines. If you already smoke… great for you. However, there's no reason here for the pharmaceutical companies to be dreading the legalization of pot; they should be looking forward to it. And as I understand it (here in the States, anyway), the Federal Government has restricted the drug companies from researching marijuana-based-medications and those restrictions come not from the drug companies lobbying for them, but from Conservative back-lash against the counter-culture of the 40's, 50's and 60's.

[quote1244572488=madamadam]I didn't even say most people have a problem with it, who's posts are you reading?[/quote1244572488]
[quote1244573609=madamadam]Sure, you're right, [b]there's a large portion of the market[/b] that would remain stuck in their ways – [b]particularly in places like America[/b] and England where nationalism is an eyesore on the political landscape and people refuse to be associated with those damn hippies…[/quote1244573609]

[quote1244572488=madamadam]Heck, I'm barely disagreeing with you… To save you scrolling back up I'll restate what you seem to have completely glossed over:
"There will also be a large amount of people who, if weed was easily available, would have no problem going for a spliff – what about all the smokers who don't smoke weed atm? What about the 30-somethings I mentioned earlier?"[/quote1244572488]
There's nothing to gloss over… weed IS usually readily available here (while you won't find an official figure to back this, if you talk to a Vermont State Trooper, they can tell you that Marijuana is Vermont's #1 cash crop). People who want to smoke it [i]DO[/i] smoke it and in my experience, a typical pot dealer isn't exactly a hardened criminal.

If it were legal, I doubt many people's habits would change much (save for active smokers who'd go on an initial frenzy which we all agree on). The 30-something isn't going to buy a joint instead of a bottle of some over-the-counter medication unless it happens to be cheaper and easier (and they feel inclined to actually smoke it). Most would probably prefer their remedy (or high) in a form that didn't require smoking. The less hassle, the better.

[quote1244572488=madamadam][quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
I'm not talking about OPEC. OPEC cooperates to set the price of oil.

What I'm talking about is oil prices fall [i]but gasoline prices don't fall as much.[/i] That's not OPEC, that's Exon/Mobil and the other big [i]gasoline[/i] companies cooperating to increase their own profits.

As well as that, insurance companies are notorious for lobbying state and federal legislative bodies to pass this law or that which forces people do act in ways that would reduce the payouts that insurance companies have to make (ie: mandatory seatbelt use).

HOWEVER, once these laws are passed and fewer people are getting killed or hurt as badly as before, [i]insurance premiums stay the same.[/i] People who work in the Insurance industry have told me about this.[/quote1244512115]
I see what you're trying to say, but insurance is a special industry whose mechanics would be very difficult to map onto others.
As for the gasoline companies – the gasoline market is an oligopoly, and a ridiculously powerful one at that so it isn't surprising, nor is it news, that they have the sway to make certain people look the other way.
The industries hemp would affect are, for instance, the clothing industry, the cosmetics industry, the god-damn loo roll industry. Not only are these industries nowhere near as politically influential as the gas companies, they also have a much larger marketplace to deal with making collusion damn-near impossible, even if they wanted to.
I'll believe that the clothing industry has the power to collude and get away with it the day I see Derek Zoolander on the cover of Time Magazine.[/quote1244572488]
What's the difference between a $50 "designer" t-shirt at The Gap and a $15 imitation at Wal*Mart?

The fabrics are the same, the designs (while maybe not quite identical) are basically the same, the quality of the stitching is [usually] the same… and often times the $15 shirt looks better.

In fashion, [i]brand recognition[/i] is everything. You are not going to effect these people with a cheaper material. Wal*Mart's shirt may go down to $10, but what do they care? They're getting it for a lower price, anyway (which is what Wal*Mart wants in the first place).

If a company can't exploit a cheaper raw material the same way that Exon/Mobil 'protects its share-holders,' then oh, well. If all else stays the same, then they're still making roughly the same profit margin. In fact, they're probably selling [i]more[/i] product because now Billy-Bob is buying [i]three[/i] t-shirts at Wal*Mart for the same price that used to get him two.

Again, it's not the end of their world.

[quote1244572488=madamadam][quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]
OK, you're getting your info from a pro-hemp organization and you're not thinking for a single moment that the information [i]might[/i] be skewed?

Are you shitting me!?

Do you ever, at any point think critically of your own opinions? Seriously.

You seem to have this idea in your head that my beliefs were dictated to me. The truth is that before I take a stance, I've thought about it from as many points of view as I possibly can, I've argued them all with myself and then when an idea or a set of ideas 'wins,' that's what I go with (until better evidence or arguments prove me wrong).[/quote1244512115]
LOLlerskates!
Thinking isn't as hard to do as you make it sound.[/quote1244572488]
Where did I say it was hard?

Personally, I find it pretty easy and enjoyable.

I was just questioning if you ever think critically about [u]your own[/u] opinions because you argue in a way that suggests you don't.

[quote1244572488=madamadam][quote1244512115=Frag Magnet]Now, to the point at hand…
Personally, I'm going by what a Greenpeace co-founder (who looks like he's smoked a joint or two [hundred] in his day) and [url=http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244502729&sr=8-1]this guy[/url] have to say on the issue of deforestation.

They have some pretty substantial and thorough numbers on their side.
[/quote1244512115]
That's great and all, but there's no information there, other than that you read a book. Great job, Buddy!
But seriously, the website I linked you to isn't some pothead collaboration – oh wait, no it probably is.
That doesn't mean that they're [i]wrong[/i].[/quote1244572488]
But it [i]does[/i] mean that they have a [b]conflict of interest[/b].

[quote1244572488=madamadam]If you wanna retort with that book up there, find me the bits where they contradict the website and cite them. Don't just go "ooh look at me with my marvellous thinking brain, I read a book! That makes me right and you wrong!"
It just comes off as retarded.[/quote1244572488]
Personally, I looked at it as more of a 'bibliography,' you know, so you knew where to go in order to check my source. Whether or not you follow up on it is on you.

I mean, I could just as easily fault you for linking to that site; you [i]could[/i] have quoted the exact, relevant information and posted it right in this thread, but you didn't.

That said, I happen to be about 2000km away from my copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist right now, though if you want to do the work yourself, Lomborg got most of his raw data from the UN. But since you seem to be too lazy to check out a book…

However, it basically works out to what I said earlier; here in the West (and the 1st world, in general), demand for trees ensures that trees are planted to replace the ones that are cut. Most of the 1st world (and especially the US) is in fact more forested now than it was 100 years ago.

[quote1244572488=madamadam]I kinda see why you're in the army now.[/quote1244572488]
No, you don't.

[quote1244579026=Sonic Libido]
I do Not Smoke Pot, But I think it Should be Legal.

I think it would gain untaped tax revenue.

I think we'd gain back some cash from not continuing to fill our prisons with people who just want to chill at home and get blitzed on their own time.

sure, there should be an age limit and laws against smoking in public and in restaurants and schools, but we have those in place for tobacco so I can't imagine it'd be that hard to put in to place.

alcohol is much worse and it's perfectly legal, the logic just seems to crumble there.

[/quote1244579026]

I like the set up here in California. It's legal from a medical standpoint. You have to have a medical marijuana card to buy it from a dispensery, but in the same breath…if the feds catch you with enough of it, you're soooo totally going to jail. I think it keeps a tight leash on users and makes people self aware that you are not completely untouchable by the law if you take advantage of the system they have in place.

It should not be completely legalized like cigarettes and alcohol. For Pete's sake, adults can't even be responsible with alcohol consumption. It's bad enough to have to worry about drunk drivers…but then you gotta worry about drunk and completely fuckin' [i]stoned[/i] drivers. I say nay. :–)

[quote1244587375=Desensitized]
Whyyyyyyyyyyy?
[/quote1244587375]

That's just how racists are!

Jon and I had a lengthy discussion over AIM about this, and it boiled down to;

1. I'm against nationalizing healthcare; I don't want the government deciding what's best for my health.

2. I'm against this rediculious spending that is going to tremendously fuck this country over and make our currency completely worthless. It was bad enough the way it was.

3. The bailouts are full of shit. Some of this money is being forced on states and or companies that don't want/ need it. It's the government trying to make a quick buck in the long term.

4. I'm against issues like the Fairness Doctrine. It sounds fair when read like a quick proposition summary, but it's hardly fair at all if you pay attention to the details. It violates 1st amendment rights.

5. I don't like being told that I can't grow my own fruit or vegetables so the governement can prevent me from locally growing my own food so multinational agribusiness can completely control the production and distribution of the U.S. food supply.

6. The gun control policies are full of shit, and it clearly didn't work during the Clinton administration years. Studies show that the guns that were banned weren't even the kind of guns that were on in the hands of gang members or murderers to begin with….no wonder the ban looked like it was successful. It violates 2nd amendment rights.

7. I don't appreciate Obama going to other countries and apologizing on behalf of the U.S. for things that I'm certainly not sorry for, and most I know aren't sorry either.

8. I don't agree with closing gitmo bay. Those fuckers are in there for a reason, and now he wants to release them on our streets and give them money to make a life here. Fuck that.

9. The U.S. still has yet to see an authentic certificate of live birth because Obama won't hand it over. He thinks it's ok to submit a scanned copy, yet it wouldn't be acceptable for any other president if that happened, why should it be any different for him? I whole heartedly beleive he is not a U.S. citizen, because the information that the white house has put out has been soooo inconsistant…it basically caught him in his own lie. Not a U.S. citizen= not a president.

10. I don't agree with his tax plans. We get taxed enough as it is, especially here in California. Now he wants to impose a VAT tax? Getting a little sick of forking out money and it not being spent properly.

Dave, I could go on and on, so if this makes me a racist…then that would make you a nigger lover.

You wanted so badly for me to say some derogatory and racist, so there you go. I'm a racist because I don't like the direction our [i]black[/i] president is going with this country.

All this, in just 4 months! Alright man! Way to go.

Can't be arsed to go through all the quoting, but the only "prophesies of doom and gloom for big business that […I was…] espousing towards the beginning of this thread" were for the pharmaceutical and textile industries who I still honestly believe would see [i]significant[/i] losses, I'm not saying they'd go bankrupt or even near to that, and of course, yes they can resort to hiking up prices to deal with it (to what extent though?).
I said I wasn't at liberty to say for oil companies but that it would be hard to imagine them making as much as they do now – I gave no indication of how much they'd lose because I have no clue.
I pointed out that "alcohol companies would see short-term losses, but in the long run they'd only see a small dip in income." An argument I have been backing all the way through and that you seem to agree with.
I claimed that the pharmaceutical industry is trying to keep pot illegal, which they are, and I made a false statement regarding alcohol companies involvement in this, which I later corrected myself on, however they were a part of it in the past – my argument for why being that they are/were poorly informed of pot smokers' habits.

My whole argument is that it's not going to have a devastating effect, and that it's silly that it's illegal.

Reread my first post again, bar the paper industry stuff I'm being perfectly reasonable.

Oh, and that GDP stuff, I meant to point out in that post that actually there would only be a minimal, if any GDP drop, but I forgot and it never came up again.

Amy called Dave a nigger lover!

See, THIS is what the new RBF album does to you! If you like it, you turn racist!

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Haha! And I was just kidding!

The funny thing is, you weren't but you were trying to act like you were. You thought you'd see if you could call my bluff, but I ended up calling yours. 😉

No, I think he actually was joking. Great response though.

Perfect vid.

[quote1244760593=LyinAss Bitch]
[quote1244579026=Sonic Libido]
I do Not Smoke Pot, But I think it Should be Legal.

I think it would gain untaped tax revenue.

I think we'd gain back some cash from not continuing to fill our prisons with people who just want to chill at home and get blitzed on their own time.

sure, there should be an age limit and laws against smoking in public and in restaurants and schools, but we have those in place for tobacco so I can't imagine it'd be that hard to put in to place.

alcohol is much worse and it's perfectly legal, the logic just seems to crumble there.

[/quote1244579026]

I like the set up here in California. It's legal from a medical standpoint. You have to have a medical marijuana card to buy it from a dispensery, but in the same breath…if the feds catch you with enough of it, you're soooo totally going to jail. I think it keeps a tight leash on users and makes people self aware that you are not completely untouchable by the law if you take advantage of the system they have in place.

It should not be completely legalized like cigarettes and alcohol. For Pete's sake, adults can't even be responsible with alcohol consumption. It's bad enough to have to worry about drunk drivers…but then you gotta worry about drunk and completely fuckin' [i]stoned[/i] drivers. I say nay. :–)
[/quote1244760593]

it should be completely legalized.

here i feel like i have to smoke more because i don't know if something's going to change…the law feels too gray and therefore like it's a limited-time commodity that i have to consume more of. if it were completely legal, i'd keep it more like a liquor cabinet: not something i'm breaking into every night.

outside of cali, having it be completely illegal somewhat regulated how much one could get and so limited the intake.

cali's system is fucked and breeds abuse as much as it being illegal does.

and as far as drunk drivers and all that: people are stupid no matter what. my only accident was with a stone-sober moron who didn't comprehend that roads get slick when it rains. and, in fact, the vast majority of accidents are by sober people who are simply just stupid. it's fascist groups like MAD that overemphasize the impact of drunk drivers to accomplish their non-publicized-but-implied goals of temperance and prohibition. john: i know your ass got run over…it's a statistical anomaly…you should be proud to be one….to truly be rare.

if anything should legalize all drugs including the hard drugs, remove pedestrian right of way laws, and watch the morons drop like flies. it'd start to take care of our population problem and hopefully would force people to develop into a more independent human who doesn't need to be coddled at every turn.

[quote1244761058=LyinAss Bitch]
The funny thing is, you weren't but you were trying to act like you were. You thought you'd see if you could call my bluff, but I ended up calling yours. 😉

[/quote1244761058]

I was definitely joking. It was an easy joke cos Barack is black and you hadn't specified why you didn't like him and said you refused to acknowledge him as president. I knew you weren't racist.

But fuck, you sucked the fun outta that one. A joke is always shit when you end up having to explain it.

Never mind. Life goes on!

[quote1244771896=Super Sonic]I was definitely joking. It was an easy joke cos Barack is black and you hadn't specified why you didn't like him and said you refused to acknowledge him as president. I knew you weren't racist.[/quote1244771896]

you're culturally ignorant so i'll explain it to you real quick: that actually is an issue in some areas out here. california is an especially butthurt area about racism because they're so politically correct about it and yet still so racist for the most part. so i can easily see how she would be annoyed at it…because it's an annoying thing out here and, a lot of times, a legitimate accusation.*

*realizing my wording was awkward/vague: i mean that people seriously would accuse someone of being racist for not liking obama.

[quote1244789960=the unlucky platypus]
[quote1244771896=Super Sonic]I was definitely joking. It was an easy joke cos Barack is black and you hadn't specified why you didn't like him and said you refused to acknowledge him as president. I knew you weren't racist.[/quote1244771896]

you're culturally ignorant so i'll explain it to you real quick: that actually is an issue in some areas out here. california is an especially butthurt area about racism because they're so politically correct about it and yet still so racist for the most part. so i can easily see how she would be annoyed at it…because it's an annoying thing out here and, a lot of times, a legitimate accusation.*

*realizing my wording was awkward/vague: i mean that people seriously would accuse someone of being racist for not liking obama.
[/quote1244789960]

But is that true? I mean, is there a fair percentage of people who don't like him just because he's black?
Or is it just the generic accuse form Obama fans – "If you don't like him (for whatever reason), you MUST be a racist?"

That been said, I quite like him as the boss of the world. At least if Martians invade us I won't be ashamed of sending him to speak with them.

Obviously, [white] racists don't like Obama and they're never going to.

That said, accusing a non-Obama supporter of being a racist is one of the first things that camp seems to go for – as if it's not possible for someone to rationally disagree with his policies.

[quote1244807551=the unlucky platypus]john: i know your ass got run over…it's a statistical anomaly…you should be proud to be one….to truly be rare.[/quote1244807551]
Dude, you don't even know…

Only 3% of motorcycle accidents are rear-end collisions. AND by a driver who's horribly intoxicated? That's gotta be in the like .5% range at least.

[quote1244848581=Samu]
[quote1244789960=the unlucky platypus]
[quote1244771896=Super Sonic]I was definitely joking. It was an easy joke cos Barack is black and you hadn't specified why you didn't like him and said you refused to acknowledge him as president. I knew you weren't racist.[/quote1244771896]

you're culturally ignorant so i'll explain it to you real quick: that actually is an issue in some areas out here. california is an especially butthurt area about racism because they're so politically correct about it and yet still so racist for the most part. so i can easily see how she would be annoyed at it…because it's an annoying thing out here and, a lot of times, a legitimate accusation.*

*realizing my wording was awkward/vague: i mean that people seriously would accuse someone of being racist for not liking obama.
[/quote1244789960]

But is that true? I mean, is there a fair percentage of people who don't like him just because he's black?
Or is it just the generic accuse form Obama fans – "If you don't like him (for whatever reason), you MUST be a racist?"

That been said, I quite like him as the boss of the world. At least if Martians invade us I won't be ashamed of sending him to speak with them.
[/quote1244848581]

actually it's the other way around: plenty people voted for obama for no reason other than that he's black. i know more people who are completely clueless about his policies but are proud they voted for him because he's the first black president. it's almost like if you voted against him then you're against affirmative action and therefore are a racist. and it's actually a lot more nuanced than that but i suck at explaining things.

and i agree: obama is a pretty solid orator…especially after the dubya trainwreck. but you need to pay attention to not only what he says in speeches but what laws he passes and what he's doing on that end. did you know that he's appointing a cyber czar? did you know that part of his cyber czar initiative includes language about trying to remove any anonymity from the internet?

http://grinding.be/2009/05/29/what-does-obamas-identity-management-vision-mean/

there's plenty more questionable things he's looking to do that aren't publicized.

not to mention there's been a very large number of protesters who have been arrested under his watch….which i wasn't aware of such things happening under bush's watch.

[quote1244848934=Frag Magnet]
[quote1244807551=the unlucky platypus]john: i know your ass got run over…it's a statistical anomaly…you should be proud to be one….to truly be rare.[/quote1244807551]
Dude, you don't even know…

Only 3% of motorcycle accidents are rear-end collisions. AND by a driver who's horribly intoxicated? That's gotta be in the like .5% range at least.
[/quote1244848934]

figured it was under 10% but didn't realize it was under 5%.

[quote1245083928=the unlucky platypus]
[quote1244771896=Super Sonic]I was definitely joking. It was an easy joke cos Barack is black and you hadn't specified why you didn't like him and said you refused to acknowledge him as president. I knew you weren't racist.[/quote1244771896]

you're culturally ignorant so i'll explain it to you real quick: that actually is an issue in some areas out here. california is an especially butthurt area about racism because they're so politically correct about it and yet still so racist for the most part. so i can easily see how she would be annoyed at it…because it's an annoying thing out here and, a lot of times, a legitimate accusation.*

*realizing my wording was awkward/vague: i mean that people seriously would accuse someone of being racist for not liking obama.
[/quote1245083928]

Thanks Jon, you put it better than I could have. The first thing that comes out of peoples' mouths when they ask what I think about him and I say that I think he sucks…I'm automatically a racist. I follow information and try to stay updated on the things that really count, such as policies, foreign affairs, legislation, bills being passed, etc. and I just don't agree, and that's perfectly ok.

I'm not out there imposing my beliefs on other people, but when I ask the same people who ask me why they like him…they can't really come up with specifics . I just here that he's a great guy, and he has awesomely optimistic speeches. Maybe I jumped the gun on Dave, but I've been extremely annoyed at the stigma of being a racist because I truly don't agree with policies, ultimately. I get tired of defending my standpoint, and just give in. Fine, I guess I'm a racist.

On another note, I've been even more aggravated because my ex husband was deployed and it's been difficult trying to get my son and daughter to understand what exactly is going on… so I'm an easy target for fighting because my patience are wearing thin. ~:(

[quote1245101270=LyinAss Bitch]On another note, I've been even more aggravated because my ex husband was deployed and it's been difficult trying to get my son and daughter to understand what exactly is going on
[/quote1245101270]

"daddy was really excited about destructive force and couldn't find a career elsewhere so he joined the military and now gets paid to kill, blow things up, and generally hurt people. then after all that is done, he helps repair everything he just broke and kills the remaining people who are mad that he even decided to break something to begin with."

/netanyahu more resembles hitler than saddam
//but we did need the oil/strategic stronghold in the middle east. so: yay iraq war

Holy fuck, assholes, don't type so much.

who's fighting for my right to party?

Jews….

Arabs.

[quote1245448252=Sonic Libido]
who's fighting for my right to party?
[/quote1245448252]

that'd be the libertarians. they would nix all the laws that'll get you arrested for partying.

[quote1245452067=Sonic Libido]
who's fighting for my right to party?
[/quote1245452067]
This guy.

\m/

I'm with Jewish, Arab, Libertarian Frag Magnet.

The Jews conspired behind 9/11. Spread the word.

[quote1245501131=madamadam]The al Queda conspired behind 9/11. Spread the word.[/quote1245501131]
Well, your phrasing is a little back-woods but I can go with that.

[quote1245514504=madamadam]
The Jews conspired behind 9/11. Spread the word.
[/quote1245514504]

marvin bush isn't jewish. nor were the germans that helped mohammed atta with all his visa's and work permits and rent when he was in florida training/doing drug runs.

Thank you for correcting me. My views on the world have changed.

Jews are filthy.

Then they should be sent to the showers or something.

i hear they have a high prevalency of ADD and ADHD.