Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

    http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...ar-the-reefer/

    Pretty informative. The meat is a bit toward the middle of the article if anyone is interested.

    "
    For sure, decriminalizing – or even outright legalizing – marijuana in Texas would bring a lot of benefits, advocates say, such as a noticeable reduction in criminal justice expenses, including the cost to lock up non-violent low-level drug offenders popped for possession. According to the FBI, in 2012, 82.2% of all drug arrests in the U.S. were for possession only; of those, 42.4% were arrested for marijuana possession. In Texas the numbers are even starker: In 2012, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety, 57% of the 116,634 adult arrests for drug possession, and a whopping 81% of the 8,132 juvenile arrests for drug possession, were for possession of pot. Consider a low-level offender popped for pot and sentenced to a year in county jail – in Austin that costs taxpayers an average of $38,548 per inmate per year.
    "

    $38,548 per inmate per year. 116,634 * .57 = 66481.38 arrested for simple possession of marijuana + (8,132 * .81 = 6586.92) * 38,548 = (73068.3 * 38548 = 2,816,636,828.4 JUST for HOUSING and FEEDING the inmates.

    2.8BILLION dollars just to house them. Which doesn't count transpo costs (to and from prisons and jails to courts. and to and from scenes of crimes), any medical bills the prisoners might accrue (and eating shitty food wearing paper scrubs in an environment where you hardly sleep and they keep it cold as shit and there isn't great hygeine tends to accrue a whole lot of problems), or the lost tax revenue from them not being out in the work force, OR the lost funds going in and out of the economy when those same people spend their paychecks etc. Also nothing about the money SS loses when these guys aren't putting in but still get to pull out later. ETC.

    And thats just simple possession of Pot. For 1 state. 2.8 billion dollars + right down the shitter.

  • #2
    Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

    I'm all for it, as long as I don't have to pay for the damages they do and their healthcare and rehab when they OD. I'm pretty Libertarian as long as I don't pay the bill for it.

    That goes both ways. I think prisons should be as self sustaining as possible. They should grow their own food and build furniture for government buildings. $38k/year is nuts.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

      Originally posted by Texan View Post
      I'm all for it, as long as I don't have to pay for the damages they do and their healthcare and rehab when they OD. I'm pretty Libertarian as long as I don't pay the bill for it.

      That goes both ways. I think prisons should be as self sustaining as possible. They should grow their own food and build furniture for government buildings. $38k/year is nuts.
      DO you have any idea just how much you would have to consume all at once to OD? I'll give you a hint: WATER is more toxic. AND you'd pretty much have to shoot it up.
      Let me tell you bud: You pay their medical bills (which as I said, tend to build up) when they're in the pokey. You pay for 3 hots and a cot too.

      Not to mention: You DON"T pay for alcoholics rehab etc costs now. Why the fuck would this be different?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

        Originally posted by Texan View Post
        I'm all for it, as long as I don't have to pay for the damages they do and their healthcare and rehab when they OD. I'm pretty Libertarian as long as I don't pay the bill for it.

        That goes both ways. I think prisons should be as self sustaining as possible. They should grow their own food and build furniture for government buildings. $38k/year is nuts.
        Hey, I'm all for it. Not only would it relieve the burden on the tax payer, the prisoners would come out of their incarceration with practical skills and work ethic, both of which should give them a better chance on the outside.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

          Originally posted by reality View Post
          DO you have any idea just how much you would have to consume all at once to OD? I'll give you a hint: WATER is more toxic. AND you'd pretty much have to shoot it up.
          Let me tell you bud: You pay their medical bills (which as I said, tend to build up) when they're in the pokey. You pay for 3 hots and a cot too.

          Not to mention: You DON"T pay for alcoholics rehab etc costs now. Why the fuck would this be different?
          Hmm. I wonder how prevalent lung cancer would be in those that smoked pot heavily.
          Oh I forgot! Pot is a golden substance that falls from God / Gaia like manna, and would never cause any lung cancer. Never mind!

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
            Hmm. I wonder how prevalent lung cancer would be in those that smoked pot heavily.
            Oh I forgot! Pot is a golden substance that falls from God / Gaia like manna, and would never cause any lung cancer. Never mind!
            http://lungcancer.about.com/od/cause.../marijuana.htm
            This is one for your team. The strongest it gets is "probably" but provides no actual evidence other than a study showing that if you smoke tobacco and marijuana your risk goes up.

            http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/new...to-lung-cancer
            "The heaviest marijuana users in the study had smoked more than 22,000 joints, while moderately heavy smokers had smoked between 11,000 and 22,000 joints.

            While two-pack-a-day or more cigarette smokers were found to have a 20-fold increase in lung cancer risk, no elevation in risk was seen for even the very heaviest marijuana smokers.
            "
            http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4506595
            THC has a protective effect against cancer, as this article reveals lung cancer SPECIFICALLY, and in fact can be injected into tumors to cause cell death of cancerous cells ONLY.
            Another study article http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/1...h-lung-damage/
            o and just one more http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05...e-lung-cancer/

            Not that you'll read the articles, but I feel it nice to put the onus upon you.

            And besides: You can vape it which removes the problem of lung cancer entirely. Or eat it.

            And besides: Tobacco causes plenty of lung cancer and all they have to do is put a warning on the label. Alcohol is likewise absurdly dangerous and causes 10's of thousands of deaths in the US each year, and all they have to do is put a warning on the label.
            Sensing a pattern there sparky?

            And besides: If possible health risks are the cut off for legality of a thing then : coal, cars, gasoline, nuke power, sugar, soda, candy, red meat, and guns should all be blanket illegal.
            You must be all up Obama's nominee for Surgeon General's asshole about guns being health issues eh?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

              Originally posted by reality View Post
              DO you have any idea just how much you would have to consume all at once to OD? I'll give you a hint: WATER is more toxic. AND you'd pretty much have to shoot it up.
              Let me tell you bud: You pay their medical bills (which as I said, tend to build up) when they're in the pokey. You pay for 3 hots and a cot too.

              Not to mention: You DON"T pay for alcoholics rehab etc costs now. Why the fuck would this be different?
              I was clumsy when I mentioned ODing. I meant drugs in general, implying that marijuana is a "gateway drug". I really don't care what people do to themselves as long as I don't end up with the bill. I think all government should stay out of our lives until we make decisions that violate the rights and pocketbooks of others. We obviously need traffic laws and laws against violent crime, fraud, extortion, and any crime where someone violates the rights of another. I don't like "victimless" crimes, but anybody who can afford to drink, smoke pot, or do any other mind altering drug doesn't need my help to pay for his decisions or his habits. I think all welfare and government sponsored healthcare should be contingent on the behavior of the recipient. A separate issue would be if a welfare recipient will decide to have kids and expect our tax dollars to support their decision should be sterilized after the baby is born or lose all future welfare(in my world).

              Whether I pay for their incarceration or their medical bills, I don't like it either way. I've spent my life making the right choices for myself and my family. In spite of a few screw-ups, I've tried my best to make sure that other people don't pay for my decisions. I expect that effort from everybody. I guess it's one of my character flaws.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                Some expenses for rehabilitation -or attempts to- would have to be born by the public if we are to place drug abuse in the "medical", rather than "criminal" category. That is because some of the abuse that requires rehab comes from people who cannot afford to pay for private rehab.

                Next, we need to compare all those jobs created in order to house all those prisoners. Compare that with jobs in the medical rehab -replacement model.

                Another cost in the current "criminal control industry" model is lost employment and lower income. "Arrest/conviction" gets an otherwise qualified person a lower-paid job because his criminal background check keeps him from getting lots of higher-paying jobs.

                Those are just a few categories in the cost/benefit analysis. This method is rarely if ever used in deciding what to do with many social ills, which is why we tend to...
                1) Piss away huge amounts of time and money on projects, while...
                2) Failing to measure if, or how much, those projects have actually met their objectives, providing....
                3) Said projects had a Freakin' objective in the first place.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                  Originally posted by Texan View Post
                  I was clumsy when I mentioned ODing. I meant drugs in general, implying that marijuana is a "gateway drug". I really don't care what people do to themselves as long as I don't end up with the bill. I think all government should stay out of our lives until we make decisions that violate the rights and pocketbooks of others. We obviously need traffic laws and laws against violent crime, fraud, extortion, and any crime where someone violates the rights of another. I don't like "victimless" crimes, but anybody who can afford to drink, smoke pot, or do any other mind altering drug doesn't need my help to pay for his decisions or his habits. I think all welfare and government sponsored healthcare should be contingent on the behavior of the recipient. A separate issue would be if a welfare recipient will decide to have kids and expect our tax dollars to support their decision should be sterilized after the baby is born or lose all future welfare(in my world).

                  Whether I pay for their incarceration or their medical bills, I don't like it either way. I've spent my life making the right choices for myself and my family. In spite of a few screw-ups, I've tried my best to make sure that other people don't pay for my decisions. I expect that effort from everybody. I guess it's one of my character flaws.
                  Alcohol is the king of gateway drugs. But the anti pot folks would rather use pot, when it was what alcohol led to.

                  I smoked the weed in my youth, and I drank booze as well. Booze is 100 times worse than being high on pot. In fact, it is probably up there with heroin in in its intoxication properties. Compared to booze, pot is a light drug, and plus it generally doesn't cause people to want to whip ass and take name. Liquid courage is what my dad called it. 10 feet tall and bullet proof, even when driving a hundred miles an hour.

                  Pot has been demonized by the gov't and the anti intoxicant people for my entire life. And the false information that has been put out in regards to pot, the propaganda, has made some people try it, just because they are not supposed to. I am sure the same happened when we screwed up and made booze illegal. Forbidden fruit. If you want to encourage people to try a drug, make it forbidden and create mountains of propaganda, that obviously is based upon lies. It works and it will always work. And this dates back to the garden of eden. Man was told to not eat of the fruit of two trees. And what did he do? LOL. That people are not intelligent enough, in their anti drug fervor, to see the forbidden fruit causation is funny. The more these people holler and scream about it, using lies to support their postions, the more some people will flock to it.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                    It is going to take time but one by one States will realize how much cost can be avoided by decriminalizing pot.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                      It will be curious to see what Colorado experiences in a couple of years. One of the things the founders foresaw was states experimenting with different things to see what works.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        It will be curious to see what Colorado experiences in a couple of years. One of the things the founders foresaw was states experimenting with different things to see what works.
                        ^^^This is why the 10th Amendment is so important. It keeps us from putting all of our eggs in one basket.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                          Originally posted by Texan View Post
                          ^^^This is why the 10th Amendment is so important. It keeps us from putting all of our eggs in one basket.
                          Unfortunately during challenge at the Supreme Court level the 10th Amendment rarely if ever comes up.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            Alcohol is the king of gateway drugs. But the anti pot folks would rather use pot, when it was what alcohol led to.

                            I smoked the weed in my youth, and I drank booze as well. Booze is 100 times worse than being high on pot. In fact, it is probably up there with heroin in in its intoxication properties. Compared to booze, pot is a light drug, and plus it generally doesn't cause people to want to whip ass and take name. Liquid courage is what my dad called it. 10 feet tall and bullet proof, even when driving a hundred miles an hour.

                            Pot has been demonized by the gov't and the anti intoxicant people for my entire life. And the false information that has been put out in regards to pot, the propaganda, has made some people try it, just because they are not supposed to. I am sure the same happened when we screwed up and made booze illegal. Forbidden fruit. If you want to encourage people to try a drug, make it forbidden and create mountains of propaganda, that obviously is based upon lies. It works and it will always work. And this dates back to the garden of eden. Man was told to not eat of the fruit of two trees. And what did he do? LOL. That people are not intelligent enough, in their anti drug fervor, to see the forbidden fruit causation is funny. The more these people holler and scream about it, using lies to support their postions, the more some people will flock to it.
                            I rarely say this but it is warranted: What Blue Doggy said

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: Costs of Texas Legalizing or Decriminalizing Pot

                              Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                              It is going to take time but one by one States will realize how much cost can be avoided by decriminalizing pot.
                              Maryland's senate passed decrim this morning. It goes back to the house (who sent it up in the first place IIRC) then to the governor. :P


                              Rick FUCKING PERRY announced intent to decriminalize for pete's sake.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X