The 'Purge' has begun!

[Joe Walsh]

Looks like we are off to a good start in purging the Washington 'Lifers'...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37226703...ost/?GT1=43001

Unfortunately, the House seat of recently dead Murtha stayed Democrat.

I'm looking forward to November and hoping that we (the voters) can unseat some more of these useless 'Lifers' from their little kingdoms.
I will vote by a simple rule: Republican or Democrat...If they have been in office more than 2 terms...I will vote against them!

[boatmangc]

All incumbents out!
Flush the toilet.

[CBT]

A country is defined by its borders. I'm all for whoever strengthens/secures/minefields ours.

[sailsmen]

Our Gov'ts Budget Projections are based on 4.5% unemployment and 4% annual growth. The previous 25 year average annual growth was 2.8%.
Our Congress has refused to put forth a Budget for the upcoming Fiscal Year. According to my Social Security Statement I will only collect 76% of benefits. This puts my projected benefits at a negative return meaning I will collect less in benefits than I paid in.
Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, Property Tax, Sales Tax, Fuel Tax, Phone Tax, Utility Tax total over 40% of our income. Everyone's income taxes are going up 1-1-11. This will push our taxes to over 45%.
There have been absolutley no reforms of Gov't. No Goals, No Reduction in Spending, No Cost Benefit Analysis. What there is in Fed Gov't is an average Salary of $73K each and $42K more per job in Salary and Benefits then the private sector equivalent.

"Exhibit a is the fact that under the Obama administration’s current fiscal plans, the national debt in the US (on a gross basis) will climb to above 100pc of GDP by 2015 – a far steeper increase than almost any other country.
Another issue is that, according to the IMF, the cost of extra healthcare and pensions will increase by a further 5.8pc over the next 20 years. This is the biggest increase of any other country in the G20 apart from Russia
America is not Greece, but if it does not start making efforts to cut the deficit within a few years, it will head in that direction. The upshot wouldn’t be an IMF bail-out, but a collapse in the dollar and possible hyperinflation in the US..."
"That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.WASHINGTON TIMES"
"That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
"The proposed budget is woefully insufficient to achieve the president's goal or the important fiscal goal of stabilizing the debt at a reasonable level in the medium and long term," Ms. MacGuineas said.
For the 2016-20 period, CBO estimates that deficits will average more than 5 percent of GDP, even while assuming the economy will be near full employment, with an average jobless rate of 5 percent during that same five-year period. WASHINGTON TIMES
"Deficits in the, let's say, 5 percent of GDP range would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable," Mr. Orszag, the President's OMB Director, acknowledged to reporters on March 20, 2009, two months after the administration entered office.
D. Elmendorf, CBO Director, appointed by the current Congress, - In speaking about 2009 "Federal Debt held by the public will equal about 60% of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, the highest level since the early 1950's. As a result, further large deficits and increases in the debt will raise serious economic risks."
Per the CBO the 10 year Budget Baseline Debt to GDP is projected to be 67.5% and President Obama's Budget's Debt to GDP is projected to be 90% Debt to GDP.This is the result of President Obama's Budget increasing Debt an additional $3.8 Trillion. The $3.8 Trillion is from increased spending from the 2010 Fiscal year above and beyond the automatic annual increases.

For reference in 1988 the Debt to GDP was 40%, in 1998 36% and 2008 40%. After WWII over 14,000,000 dropped their uniforms and many donned hardhats to rebuild Europe and Japan. Defense spending including the War is 24%, down from the post WWII 50 year average of 35%. Point is the increased spending is entitlements which do not end.

Former Tres Sec Rubin, appointed by Pres Clinton, states - "The United States faces projected 10-year federal budget deficits that seriously threaten its bond market, exchange rate, economy, and the economic future of every American worker and family. " -"The commission also found that no economy anywhere in the world had been successful with largely state-directed activities and high walls against global integration.
The evidence, in other words, strongly suggests that a market-based model is still the best way forward. ", (Rubin wrote in NewsWeek, 12-29-09)
US faces one of biggest budget crunches in world – IMF

[sailsmen]

By Edmund Conway Business Last updated: May 14th, 2010
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100005702/us-faces-one-of-biggest-budget-crunches-in-western-world-imf/
Earlier this week, the Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King, irked US authorities by pointing out that even the world’s economic superpower has a major fiscal problem -“even the United States, the world’s largest economy, has a very large fiscal deficit” were his words. They were rather vague, but by happy coincidence the International Monetary Fund has chosen to flesh out the issue today. Unfortunately this is a rather long post with a few chunky tables, but it is worth spending a bit of time with – the IMF analysis is fascinating.
Its cross-country Fiscal Monitor is not easy reading and is a VERY big pdf (17mb), so I’ve collected a few of the key points. The idea behind the document is to set out how much different countries around the world need to cut their deficits by in the next few years, and the bottom line is it’s going to be big and hard (ie 8.7pc of GDP in deficit cuts around the world, which works out at, gulp, about $4 trillion).
But the really interesting stuff is the detail, and what leaps out again and again is how much of a hill the US has to climb. Exhibit a is the fact that under the Obama administration’s current fiscal plans, the national debt in the US (on a gross basis) will climb to above 100pc of GDP by 2015 – a far steeper increase than almost any other country.

US gross debt as a percentage of GDP

Compare it with the UK, which is often pinpointed as a Greece in the making. As you can see, gross debt increases sharply, but not by anything like the same degree.

UK gross debt as a percentage of GDP

Another issue is that, according to the IMF, the cost of extra healthcare and pensions will increase by a further 5.8pc over the next 20 years. This is the biggest increase of any other country in the G20 apart from Russia, and comes despite America having far more favourable demographics. It is significantly more than the UK’s 4.2pc.
But level of debt isn’t the only problem. Then there’s the fact that the US has a far shorter maturity of government debt than most other countries, meaning that even if it weren’t borrowing any extra cash it would have to issue a large chunk of new stuff each year as things are. The killer table to show you that is this one, which shows a country’s “gross financing needs” – in other words how much debt it has to issue in the coming years to keep itself functioning.



Britain, as you can see from the second column on the left, has one of the biggest deficits in the world. However, because it also has the longest maturity of average debt in the world (far right column), and so doesn’t have to issue as much new debt each year just to keep rolling that stuff over, its gross financing needs are – at 32.2pc of GDP, way bigger than Britain’s, at 20pc. Come to think of it, it’s actually worse than Greece on this measure.
What does this mean? Basically with a large financing need, you are particularly vulnerable if the market suddenly decides it doesn’t want your debt, since those extra interest rates they charge you mount much more quickly. Japan, by the way, is the one with a real problem on this front. It could hardly be any more vulnerable to a sudden drop in investor demand, and many over there fear that the moment domestic savers stop buying JGBs, the country is doomed to Greek-style collapse (though it doesn’t share Greece’s current account deficit and, crucially, has its own currency, so I don’t know about that).
On the flip side, unlike Japan or Britain, the US does not have a central bank with quite such a large stock of government debt. Both the Bank of England and Bank of Japan have done so much quantitative easing (buying bonds with printed money) over the past few years that they have the power to cause a fiscal shock if they decided they wanted to sell off their bonds at once. This table shows you that America, while not entirely guiltless on this front, has less of a shadow hanging over it.



But all of the above is what explains why the US, according to the IMF’s projections, has more to do than any other country in the developed world (apart from Japan) when it comes to bringing its debt back towards sustainable levels. Here’s the killer table. The column to look at is on the far right: note how the US needs a 12pc of GDP chunk chopped out of its structural deficit (ie adjusted for the economic cycle). That’s $1.7 trillion. Wow – that’s not far off Britain’s total annual economic output.

So does all of this mean the US is Greece? The answer, you might be surprised to hear, is no. Now, it is true that the US has some similar issues to Greece – the high debt, the need to roll over quite a lot of debt each year, the rising healthcare costs and so on. But it has two secret (or not so secret) weapons. The first is that unlike Greece it is not trapped in a monetary union. The US, like Britain and Japan, can independently control its monetary policy; it can devalue its currency. These are hardly solutions in and of themselves, but they do help make the adjustment a lot easier and more gradual. Second, the US has growth. It remains one of, if not the, world’s most dynamic economies. It is growing at a snappy pace this year (in comparison to other countries). And a few percentage points of GDP make an immense difference, since they make those debts much easier to repay.
Finally, some might be tempted at this point to cite the fact that the US has the world’s reserve currency in the dollar as another bonus. I am less sure. There is no doubt that this has made the US a safe haven destination (people buy US bonds when freaked out about more or less anything), and has meant that America has been able to keep borrowing at low levels throughout the crisis. However, the flip side of this is that because it has yet to feel the market strain, the US also has yet to face up properly to the public finance disaster that could befall it if it does not do anything about the problem. America is not Greece, but if it does not start making efforts to cut the deficit within a few years, it will head in that direction. The upshot wouldn’t be an IMF bail-out, but a collapse in the dollar and possible hyperinflation in the US, but it would be horrific all the same. America has time, but not forever.

[Matt In Detroit]

I hope we see a lot more of this before November...

[kernie]

A country is defined by its borders. I'm all for whoever strengthens/secures/minefields ours.
Whoa, that would be one big minefield! :eek: I hate to say it but securing the mexican border sounds like mission impossible to me, just too big. Look at the tiny border between the gaza strip and Egypt, about 10 or 15 miles, tunnels to smuggle people and guns ect. Its a big chore to secure that!

I sure am glad you guys are between us and mexico!

:beer:

[Joe Walsh]

Whoa, that would be one big minefield! :eek: I hate to say it but securing the mexican border sounds like mission impossible to me, just too big. Look at the tiny border between the gaza strip and Egypt, about 10 or 15 miles, tunnels to smuggle people and guns ect. Its a big chore to secure that!

I sure am glad you guys are between us and mexico!
:beer:

Can Arizona ship 'em your way?

:2thumbs:

[kernie]

Can Arizona ship 'em your way?

:2thumbs:
Noooo! They would just cross back into the US, i don't think they like the winters up here, that border for sure is impossible to secure.

No easy solutions.

:beer:

[Leadfoot281]

A country is defined by its borders. I'm all for whoever strengthens/secures/minefields ours.


I blame Bush. He should have invaded Mexico and turned it into our 51st State during his last year in office. No more border problems!

That's what I would have done. Oh well, maybe I've been playing a little too much Civilization 4 lately.

[CBT]

can arizona ship 'em your way?

:2thumbs:
...............
20432

[MrBluGruv]

I blame Bush. He should have invaded Mexico and turned it into our 51st State during his last year in office. No more border problems!

That's what I would have done. Oh well, maybe I've been playing a little too much Civilization 4 lately.

Lol, the ironic part is that while the radical liberals may be against conquering another nation, they would probably soil their pants at the possibilities in putting that many people on welfare.

This could quite possibly be the biggest dilemma faced by Obama's organization yet... :lol:

[FordNut]

We're going to have to start ever more diligent patrols of the borders, Mexico is quickly becoming a rogue nation. Entire cities have had their police force resign due to the drug cartel violence. More and more people will try to escape by coming here.

Since the current ruling party won't do anything to defend our borders, we need to kick them out of office.

[FordNut]

Lol, the ironic part is that while the radical liberals may be against conquering another nation, they would probably soil their pants at the possibilities in putting that many people on welfare.

This could quite possibly be the biggest dilemma faced by Obama's organization yet... :lol:

One of the biggest reasons California is against the Arizona law, they fear a lot of the illegals will go to California and become an even bigger drain on their already bankrupt state's economy.

[Phrog_gunner]

One of the biggest reasons California is against the Arizona law, they fear a lot of the illegals will go to California and become an even bigger drain on their already bankrupt state's economy.

But everything CA does seems to cater to the illegals? San Francisco is REtrying to pass a law (that got voted down the first time) that will allow any resident to vote in local elections. That would draw more illegals there, not run them off, or maybe they are just too stupid to notice that attracting more will make them go bankrupt faster.

[kernie]

Lol, the ironic part is that while the radical liberals may be against conquering another nation, they would probably soil their pants at the possibilities in putting that many people on welfare.

This could quite possibly be the biggest dilemma faced by Obama's organization yet... :lol:
I know you have heard that there is alot of oil in northern alberta but its all a big lie, we dont have much oil at all eh.:eek:

:beer:

[Paul T. Casey]

Glad to see some of the incumbents go, but one of the few things I strongly disagree with the Teapartiers is term limits. Every once in a while we get a good one. Next election, I'm still screwed, just want honest answers and a plan.

[SC Cheesehead]

I know you have heard that there is alot of oil in northern alberta but its all a big lie, we dont have much oil at all eh.:eek:

:beer:

Lotsa oil sand, though. ;)

...[T]hese oil sand deposits lie under 141,000 square kilometres (54,000 sq mi) of sparsely populated boreal forest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreal_forest) and muskeg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskeg) (peat bogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogs)) and contain about 1.7 trillion barrels (270×10^9 m3) of bitumen in-place, comparable in magnitude to the world's total proven reserves of conventional petroleum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum)...making Canada's total oil reserves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves) the second largest in the world, after Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia)'s...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands

Hmmm, maybe we oughta re-think our strategery...:D

[Paul T. Casey]

Which brings me to my next idea for the Republicans. Need a slogan? How about:

HOPE is not a PLAN

[SC Cheesehead]

Which brings me to my next idea for the Republicans. Need a slogan? How about:

HOPE is not a PLAN

How's about:

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-do_not_re-elect_anybody-124.gif

[Joe Walsh]

Glad to see some of the incumbents go, but one of the few things I strongly disagree with the Teapartiers is term limits. Every once in a while we get a good one. Next election, I'm still screwed, just want honest answers and a plan.

I was not a fan of term limits, I am now!
The reality is that we have a majority of voters who are uninformed and pull the lever of whatever name sounds familiar.
Plus, the incumbents have created such a 'stacked deck' designed to keep themselves in office that we need term limits.
The Presidency has term limits....why not Congress?
2 terms as a Senator = 12 years!
5 terms in the House = 10 years!
That's enough time in Washington...BYE BYE! :wave:

We have to forego the slim chance of booting a really good politician due to imposed term limits because of the reality that we are now faced with.... a bunch of 'Lifers' who have each set up their comfortable little kingdoms and DO NOT listen to/heed what the majority of their constituents want.

[Joe Walsh]

How's about:

http://www.libertystickers.com/static/images/productimage-picture-do_not_re-elect_anybody-124.gif

That's how we should all vote in November!

It certainly cannot get any worse than what we have in Washington now.

[SC Cheesehead]

That's how we should all vote in November!

It certainly cannot get any worse than what we have in Washington now.

AMEN to that, bro!

http://superstore.wnd.com/store/images/items/W0223.jpg

[sailsmen]

What disturbs me is I am not an economist and yet after 4 hours of studying/researching the Budget from the CBO it became quite clear to me in March of 2009 that our Gov't Budgeted the complete economic collapse of our Nation.
Our Politicians do have acess to top Economist, our Politicians have done this knowing full well the hurt and suffering this will cause.
Per the CBO the 2009 Budget carried out 10 years with the auto Base Line increases results in a Debt to GDP of 56%, below the 60% danger threshold. Our Gov't has Budgeted 90%, over 50% greater than 2009 with Base Line increases!

[FordNut]

I was not a fan of term limits, I am now!
The reality is that we have a majority of voters who are uninformed and pull the lever of whatever name sounds familiar.
Plus, the incumbents have created such a 'stacked deck' designed to keep themselves in office that we need term limits.
The Presidency has term limits....why not Congress?
2 terms as a Senator = 12 years!
5 terms in the House = 10 years!
That's enough time in Washington...BYE BYE! :wave:

We have to forego the slim chance of booting a really good politician due to imposed term limits because of the reality that we are now faced with.... a bunch of 'Lifers' who have each set up their comfortable little kingdoms and DO NOT listen to/heed what the majority of their constituents want.

Agreed, and these folks should be just like the rest of us, they shouldn't have lifetime benefits after a term. Actually the benefits should be lower than the general public receives. They should be running for office to serve their constituents rather than to have a career.

If we have a really good representation they could serve 2 terms as Senator and 5 terms in the House.

[SC Cheesehead]

What disturbs me is I am not an economist and yet after 4 hours of studying/researching the Budget from the CBO it became quite clear to me in March of 2009 that our Gov't Budgeted the complete economic collapse of our Nation.
Our Politicians do have acess to top Economist, our Politicians have done this knowing full well the hurt and suffering this will cause.
Per the CBO the 2009 Budget carried out 10 years with the auto Base Line increases results in a Debt to GDP of 56%, below the 60% danger threshold. Our Gov't has Budgeted 90%, over 50% greater than 2009 with Base Line increases!


Exactly! If you and I can see this, how's come the "enlightened" in Washington can't seem to? :dunno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE3ehB9jpts&feature=related

[FordNut]

But everything CA does seems to cater to the illegals? San Francisco is REtrying to pass a law (that got voted down the first time) that will allow any resident to vote in local elections. That would draw more illegals there, not run them off, or maybe they are just too stupid to notice that attracting more will make them go bankrupt faster.

Probably...

One thing Bo should consider, Calderon has pointed out the drug war is having a devastating effect on Mexico, while in California there are pot fields and dispensaries all over the place (Berkeley is actually trying to become the American Amsterdam). It's a double standard and the US Federal government should enforce the laws inside the borders if other nations are expected to enforce similar laws.

[thathotrodlincn]

There is none so blind as one whow will not (refuses) to see!

[Joe Walsh]

Probably...

One thing Bo should consider, Calderon has pointed out the drug war is having a devastating effect on Mexico, while in California there are pot fields and dispensaries all over the place (Berkeley is actually trying to become the American Amsterdam). It's a double standard and the US Federal government should enforce the laws inside the borders if other nations are expected to enforce similar laws.

California is now threatening to boycott Arizona because of Arizona's new law...:rolleyes:

Nothing against my fellow California Marauder folks but here is a near perfect scenario;

Governor Arnold is out of state on vacation.
Pelosi is back home on another extended Congressional break.

Wildfires, mudslides and a HUGE earthquake take most of California into the Pacific Ocean.

All the illegal aliens and all of Hollywood's incredibly rich, big mouthed liberals disappear under the waves along with a wide-eyed Pelosi!

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae326/JoeJWalsh/Pelosi.jpg

:beer:

[kernie]

Probably...

One thing Bo should consider, Calderon has pointed out the drug war is having a devastating effect on Mexico, while in California there are pot fields and dispensaries all over the place (Berkeley is actually trying to become the American Amsterdam). It's a double standard and the US Federal government should enforce the laws inside the borders if other nations are expected to enforce similar laws.
There is the harmfull ugly sinister drugs and then there is mother nature, why does everybody seem to confuse the two?

:beer:

[FordNut]

There is the harmfull ugly sinister drugs and then there is mother nature, why does everybody seem to confuse the two?

:beer:

Not sure if you're serious...
Opium Poppies are a product of mother nature. So it ought to be ok to scrape the residue off the buds and smoke the raw opium?
Coca plants are a product of mother nature. So chewing coca leaves should be ok?

So why would that be ok but not the products of further refinement? opium>heroin, coca>cocaine>crack, pot>hashish
Actually one of those is legal, the opium can be processed into codeine and methadone. edit: and morphine

[kernie]

California is now threatening to boycott Arizona because of Arizona's new law...:rolleyes:

Nothing against my fellow California Marauder folks but here is a near perfect scenario;

Governor Arnold is out of state on vacation.
Pelosi is back home on another extended Congressional break.

Wildfires, mudslides and a HUGE earthquake take most of California into the Pacific Ocean.

All the illegal aliens and all of Hollywood's incredibly rich, big mouthed liberals disappear under the waves along with a wide-eyed Pelosi!

http://i984.photobucket.com/albums/ae326/JoeJWalsh/Pelosi.jpg

:beer:
I thought the liberals were the quiet half, they sure are quiet around here!

;)

[kernie]

Not sure if you're serious...
Opium Poppies are a product of mother nature. So it ought to be ok to scrape the residue off the buds and smoke the raw opium?
Coca plants are a product of mother nature. So chewing coca leaves should be ok?

So why would that be ok but not the products of further refinement? opium>heroin, coca>cocaine>crack, pot>hashish
Actually one of those is legal, the opium can be processed into codeine and methadone.
Mother nature is just a nickname for pot, my point is comparing pot to all the hard drugs is silly, legalize and tax it.

Just my opinion.

[MrBluGruv]

I know I'll catch some flak for this, but...

I don't see how alcohol is legal and marijuana is not, it's mind-boggling to me frankly.

[FordNut]

Mother nature is just a nickname for pot, my point is comparing pot to all the hard drugs is silly, legalize and tax it.

Just my opinion.

OK, how do you feel about hashish?

[kernie]

OK, how do you feel about hashish?
Doesn't sound like you know what hash is, hash or hash oil is a product from pot, soft drugs. Hey toss the monster who runs a meth lab away forever as far as i'm concerned, but throwing a pot smoker in jail is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Legalize and let the government profit instead of the criminals.

And don't assume that i toke up, i did in my younger years but have stopped as most of my friends have, easy as its not adictive like those nasty cigs.

[FordNut]

Doesn't sound like you know what hash is, hash or hash oil is a product from pot, soft drugs. Hey toss the monster who runs a meth lab away forever as far as i'm concerned, but throwing a pot smoker in jail is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Legalize and let the government profit instead of the criminals.

And don't assume that i toke up, i did in my younger years but have stopped as most of my friends have, easy as its not adictive like those nasty cigs.

Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
Just wondering where your limits are.
Since pot is legal for medical use but hash is not, I guess you figure hash and hash oil should be legalized too since they're simply purified pot?
So then what about purifying to the point of pure THC (powder or tablet form)?

[Phrog_gunner]

So then when alcohol, tobacco and weed are legal, then people will say, "Well alcohol, tobacco and weed are legal we should just legalize cocaine too"........

[FordNut]

So then when alcohol, tobacco and weed are legal, then people will say, "Well alcohol, tobacco and weed are legal we should just legalize cocaine too"........

Why not. And since meth is simply a purified form of a perfectly legal decongestant it ought to be legal too.

[Phrog_gunner]

Why not. And since meth is simply a purified form of a perfectly legal decongestant it ought to be legal too.

Well if meth is legal, that is prejudiced against the crackheads, and since crack is made from cocaine and cocaine is made from the natural coca plant it should be legal.

[CBT]

Attention anti-pot smokers: I have never heard of anyone overdosing and dying from pot. Or pornography, come to think of it, yet the U.S. cracks (no pun intended) down on them both way harder than should be allowed.

[Phrog_gunner]

Attention anti-pot smokers: I have never heard of anyone overdosing and dying from pot.

But you might wind up with a dumba$$ goatee and we are trying to save the ppl the embarrassment of that. :P

[FordNut]

Attention anti-pot smokers: I have never heard of anyone overdosing and dying from pot.


But you might wind up ... a dumba$$

Fixed it...

I guess if everybody kicks back and tokes up instead of studying, going to school, and having the drive to make something of themselves it won't matter. Since the government is going to give them free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, housing,

[kernie]

Why not. And since meth is simply a purified form of a perfectly legal decongestant it ought to be legal too.


So then when alcohol, tobacco and weed are legal, then people will say, "Well alcohol, tobacco and weed are legal we should just legalize cocaine too"........
That is what im talking about, its been drilled into everyones head for so long that weed and all the other "hard" drugs are the same that folks just can't seem to separate them. Next your going to say its a gateway drug, more BS that you have been fed.

Pot is pot, period.

[CBT]

Fixed it...

I guess if everybody kicks back and tokes up instead of studying, going to school, and having the drive to make something of themselves it won't matter. Since the government is going to give them free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, housing,

If someone lets it gets in the way of studying, working, etc. etc., then they have no will power or drive anyway. Better jobs and pay for the rest of us I reckon.

[Phrog_gunner]

That is what im talking about, its been drilled into everyones head for so long that weed and all the other "hard" drugs are the same that folks just can't seem to separate them. Next your going to say its a gateway drug, more BS that you have been fed.

Pot is pot, period.

So it's not at all possible that I can think for myself and come to my own conclusions? Please tell me why I believe abortion is wrong, I've been wondering that for years now.

[FordNut]

That is what im talking about, its been drilled into everyones head for so long that weed and all the other "hard" drugs are the same that folks just can't seem to separate them. Next your going to say its a gateway drug, more BS that you have been fed.

Pot is pot, period.


Yes, I do know what I'm talking about.
Just wondering where your limits are.
Since pot is legal for medical use but hash is not, I guess you figure hash and hash oil should be legalized too since they're simply purified pot?
So then what about purifying to the point of pure THC (powder or tablet form)?

So you just choose not to answer? or are you saying "pot" is the limit and no further refinements should be legal?

[FordNut]

Next your going to say its a gateway drug, more BS that you have been fed.
.

It may not be a "gateway drug" per se, but it is commonly a gateway into a lifestyle where many harder drugs are commonly abused. And more times than not, it progresses to abuse of harder drugs. I've seen it up close and personal.

[Phrog_gunner]

Actually, the legalization of pot would lessen the competition of my job. That would be that many more dumba$$es that would go into an interview for an airline pilot position and fail the drug test because they thought it was allowed since it is now legal.

[kernie]

So you just choose not to answer? or are you saying "pot" is the limit and no further refinements should be legal?
We are talking about pot, why does that have to be connected to the hard stuff, and no of course i don't think the hard stuff should be legal.

Hey, did you hear what CBT and MrBluGruv said! he he.

[kernie]

Actually, the legalization of pot would lessen the competition of my job. That would be that many more dumba$$es that would go into an interview for an airline pilot position and fail the drug test because they thought it was allowed since it is now legal.
People who live in glass houses...

[FordNut]

We are talking about pot, why does that have to be connected to the hard stuff, and no of course i don't think the hard stuff should be legal.

Hey, did you hear what CBT and MrBluGruv said! he he.

OK, so you're saying pot is ok but not hash?

So hash is a hard drug but pot isn't?

And pot is pot, no matter whether it's Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Appalachian Highland, Humboldt Express, or some of the newer exotic high-THC content chronic stuff?

I don't get it, some of that new, potent sens is stronger than the lower grades of hash.

[Phrog_gunner]

People who live in glass houses...

Please, feel free to post any facts or logic you used to come to this conclusion. It's always easy to tell when someone can't keep up with the intellect or logic of a conversation because they make personal attacks.

[FordNut]

Since we're on this subject, I wonder why there is so much pot smuggling across the borders into America? It seems like it would make more sense to process the pot into hash, then smuggle the hash across the borders. The hash would take up much less space, be easier to conceal, and sell for a higher price. One of the reasons in most of Europe it is easier to find hash than pot is that it's easier to smuggle across the borders.

[kernie]

Doesn't sound like you know what hash is, hash or hash oil is a product from pot, soft drugs. Hey toss the monster who runs a meth lab away forever as far as i'm concerned, but throwing a pot smoker in jail is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Legalize and let the government profit instead of the criminals.

And don't assume that i toke up, i did in my younger years but have stopped as most of my friends have, easy as its not adictive like those nasty cigs.


OK, so you're saying pot is ok but not hash?

So hash is a hard drug but pot isn't?

And pot is pot, no matter whether it's Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Appalachian Highland, Humboldt Express, or some of the newer exotic high-THC content chronic stuff?

I don't get it, some of that new, potent sens is stronger than the lower grades of hash.
As i said hash is pot, same soft drug. Smoking pot and smoking hash have prettymuch the same effect

If pot were legal and controlled then the THC would also be controlled, not that it really matters, higher grade= less need to smoke alot and pollute your lungs, but of course you know that right? Or do you think higher THC leads to reefer madness?

So what is your solution to the pot "problem"? Throw them in jail? A very expensive solution. The "free" USA has the highest incarseration rate in the western world, something like 4 times the per capita rate of Canada, how is that working for you? Oh dear, the crime stats are much worse also, hmmm.

The war on drugs, how is that going?

Argueing with you is like beating your head against the wall.

[kernie]

Since we're on this subject, I wonder why there is so much pot smuggling across the borders into America? It seems like it would make more sense to process the pot into hash, then smuggle the hash across the borders. The hash would take up much less space, be easier to conceal, and sell for a higher price. One of the reasons in most of Europe it is easier to find hash than pot is that it's easier to smuggle across the borders.
We are just trying to send you some love brother, in return you send us illegal handguns and illegal cheap smokes, thanks.

[Phrog_gunner]

So what is your solution to the pot "problem"? Throw them in jail? A very expensive solution. The "free" USA has the highest incarseration rate in the western world, something like 4 times the per capita rate of Canada, how is that working for you? Oh dear, the crime stats are much worse also, hmmm.

So by this same logic, we should reduce the "rate" of child molestation by making it legal. Then poof, the problem instantly goes away.

[SC Cheesehead]

So by this same logic, we should reduce the "rate" of child molestation by making it legal. Then poof, the problem instantly goes away.

Agreed.

Flawed logic, but then again logic may not come into play here...:rolleyes:

[kernie]

But you might wind up with a dumba$$ goatee and we are trying to save the ppl the embarrassment of that. :P


Actually, the legalization of pot would lessen the competition of my job. That would be that many more dumba$$es that would go into an interview for an airline pilot position and fail the drug test because they thought it was allowed since it is now legal.


Please, feel free to post any facts or logic you used to come to this conclusion. It's always easy to tell when someone can't keep up with the intellect or logic of a conversation because they make personal attacks.
Oh it's me that calls people names, ok.

[kernie]

So by this same logic, we should reduce the "rate" of child molestation by making it legal. Then poof, the problem instantly goes away.
What a stupid statement, is that the best you can do?

[CBT]

An age limit would have to be established. To vote or buy ciggs, it's 18. To drink, 21. To molest a child, that child should be at least 18, but in some states a 16 year old can marry with permission from the parents. All these laws boil down to morals, and not everyones moral codes are the same. It is wrong to bang a 13 year old girl, right? Hey guess what I was doing when I was 13. I was banging 13 year old girls. Again, it's all open to interpretation as far as what's legal and illegal. I think a legal age for burning a joint should be established at say, 21. Because much like the current drinking age law, EVERYONE will obey it, right? :rolleyes:

[SC Cheesehead]

As i said hash is pot, same soft drug. Smoking pot and smoking hash have prettymuch the same effect

If pot were legal and controlled then the THC would also be controlled, not that it really matters, higher grade= less need to smoke alot and pollute your lungs, but of course you know that right? Or do you think higher THC leads to reefer madness?

So what is your solution to the pot "problem"? Throw them in jail? A very expensive solution. The "free" USA has the highest incarseration rate in the western world, something like 4 times the per capita rate of Canada, how is that working for you? Oh dear, the crime stats are much worse also, hmmm.

The war on drugs, how is that going?

Argueing with you is like beating your head against the wall.


What a stupid statement, is that the best you can do?


So by your "logic" legalizing pot would result in a lower incarceration rate across the board here in the US, as well as reduce crime stats? :confused:

Gonna have to 'splain that one to me, bubba...:rolleyes:

[Phrog_gunner]

Oh it's me that calls people names, ok.

Oh, the old "Well Johnny did it too", reply. Impressive.


CBT and I know each other, it was poking fun. You don't know me and therefore don't rate that privilege.

Would you fly on an airline where the pilot was high? For the sake of time, I'll guess no, but feel free to correct me. Do you know of a test that is the equivalent of the beathalyzer to show that a person is CURRENTLY under the influence of pot? Once again in the interest of time, I'll guess no, but feel free to correct me. Therefore, the only test is the current type to prove that there has been no pot in your system. Now onto the next logic step, if you go into an airline interview thinking you can have pot in your system and still get a job as an airline pilot, then yes, that person is a dumba$$.

Well the challenge was to post any facts or logic to backup your statement, which is a pretty small feat, seeing as how 99.9% of what I post on this site is complete jacka$$ery, but apparently I set the bar to high. Here's a hint, to help you in your building up of evidence against me, jacka$$ery is a made up word.

[Phrog_gunner]

An age limit would have to be established. To vote or buy ciggs, it's 18. To drink, 21. To molest a child, that child should be at least 18, but in some states a 16 year old can marry with permission from the parents. All these laws boil down to morals, and not everyones moral codes are the same. It is wrong to bang a 13 year old girl, right? Hey guess what I was doing when I was 13. I was banging 13 year old girls. Again, it's all open to interpretation as far as what's legal and illegal. I think a legal age for burning a joint should be established at say, 21. Because much like the current drinking age law, EVERYONE will obey it, right? :rolleyes:

WB, it's no fun making fun of your goatee if you aren't around to see it.

[SC Cheesehead]

jackassery, I kinda like that, has a ring to it...

[Phrog_gunner]

jackassery, I kinda like that, has a ring to it...

I thunk it up myself. Feel free to use it at your leisure, though.

[CBT]

Oh, the old "Well Johnny did it too", reply. Impressive.


CBT and I know each other, it was poking fun. You don't know me and therefore don't rate that privilege.

Would you fly on an airline where the pilot was high? For the sake of time, I'll guess no, but feel free to correct me. Do you know of a test that is the equivalent of the beathalyzer to show that a person is CURRENTLY under the influence of pot? Once again in the interest of time, I'll guess no, but feel free to correct me. Therefore, the only test is the current type to prove that there has been no pot in your system. Now onto the next logic step, if you go into an airline interview thinking you can have pot in your system and still get a job as an airline pilot, then yes, that person is a dumba$$.

Well the challenge was to post any facts or logic to backup your statement, which is a pretty small feat, seeing as how 99.9% of what I post on this site is complete jacka$$ery, but apparently I set the bar to high. Here's a hint, to help you in your building up of evidence against me, jacka$$ery is a made up word.
That wasn't my "fun" you were poking. :eek:
And I shaved the beard. :(

[Phrog_gunner]

that child should be at least 18

There is some flawed logic in there, somewhere, I just can't put my finger on it.

[kernie]

I give up, you guys have all the solutions as the results show.:shake:

[Phrog_gunner]

That wasn't my "fun" you were poking. :eek:
And I shaved the beard. :(

I know you did. That's why I made the comment. You don't look like a chester t. molester now. So they won't see it coming.

[FordNut]

We are just trying to send you some love brother, in return you send us illegal handguns and illegal cheap smokes, thanks.

Not sure where that logic comes from, but you're welcome.

[SC Cheesehead]

I give up, you guys have all the solutions as the results show.:shake:


I know, if we'd all just move up to Canada, everthing would be fine.

"Free" health care, no crime, REAL beer, REAL sports (e.g. curling), bi-lingual ceral boxes...

Think I'm gonna put in my two-week notice at work this Friday and start making plans...;)

[Phrog_gunner]

I know, if we'd all just move up to Canada, everthing would be fine.

"Free" health care, no crime, REAL beer, REAL sports (e.g. curling), bi-lingual ceral boxes...

Think I'm gonna put in my two-week notice at work this Friday and start making plans...;)

I hear they have some excellent military hardware up there too.

[CBT]

I know, if we'd all just move up to Canada, everthing would be fine.

"Free" health care, no crime, REAL beer, REAL sports (e.g. curling), bi-lingual ceral boxes...

Think I'm gonna put in my two-week notice at work this Friday and start making plans...;)

I've been to Canada, loved it! :beer: What I remember, that is. :D

[CBT]

I know you did. That's why I made the comment. You don't look like a chester t. molester now. So they won't see it coming.

I know, I was just an El Camino away from digging a hole in my basement and collecting plumpers.

[Phrog_gunner]

I've been to Canada, loved it! :beer: What I remember, that is. :D

I have too, their women were very hospitable to us stupid Americans.

[FordNut]

As i said hash is pot, same soft drug. Smoking pot and smoking hash have prettymuch the same effect

If pot were legal and controlled then the THC would also be controlled, not that it really matters, higher grade= less need to smoke alot and pollute your lungs, but of course you know that right? Or do you think higher THC leads to reefer madness?.
When you're not winning you put out some really moronic statements.

So when your car gets hit by somebody who is spaced out and didn't notice the stop sign, do they get a drug test in addition to a breathalyzer test? How do you know if they smoked yesterday or 1/2 hour ago? Or maybe they hit you head on because they're smoking a doobie driving down the road and had a seed pop and go down their shirt...


So what is your solution to the pot "problem"? Throw them in jail? A very expensive solution. The "free" USA has the highest incarseration rate in the western world, something like 4 times the per capita rate of Canada, how is that working for you? Oh dear, the crime stats are much worse also, hmmm.

The war on drugs, how is that going?

Argueing with you is like beating your head against the wall.

I don't have a good solution, but I do believe that legalizing it would create more and worse problems than we have now.

[SC Cheesehead]

I hear they have some excellent military hardware up there too.

State of the art...

http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=img&q=http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/guerre/photos/2800/19940001-791.jpg&ei=G4v0S9rmGoX6lwfezfCiDQ&sa=X&oi=image_landing_page_redirect&ct=legacy&usg=AFQjCNGjroLAsfrXb7jgVZq8Cj wj4F9amQ

[CBT]

When you're not winning you put out some really moronic statements.

So when your car gets hit by somebody who is spaced out and didn't notice the stop sign, do they get a drug test in addition to a breathalyzer test? How do you know if they smoked yesterday or 1/2 hour ago? Or maybe they hit you head on because they're smoking a doobie driving down the road and had a seed pop and go down their shirt...



I don't have a good solution, but I do believe that legalizing it would create more and worse problems than we have now.

Drunk drivers, people texting, and stupid people in general cause plenty of accidents, yet they still manage to get on the road because they are able to get thier hands on alcohol, cell phones, and bad genes.
Your last statement made me bust out laughing, not at you, but at the thought of it, it sounds like something the Government is already in control of it, lol.

[CBT]

Stoner sex.
20445

[MrBluGruv]

I respect a lot of you guys' opinions on this board, but with some of these statements I'm frankly disappointed. Let me lay out my logic as to why it would be a decent idea to "legalize" it:

If it became a subtance that was legal but monitored, it could mean that it would fall under the jurisdiction of some organization like the FDA or such which could certify clean pure product in a not-so-outrageous amount per "serving". It could be sold under license, much like alcohol, at certain locations. You could have a HUGE legitimate market opened up for producers to make it and to even include different flavors, like you find with shisha at hookah cafes for instance. It could have the sin tax applied to it, and generate hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of tax revenue every year. Sure, you say, but what incentive would people have to buy from a vendor and not some corner dealer or backyard grower? Well nothing much I guess, except when they buy from a legitimate vendor selling product certified by the FDA for instance they KNOW they are getting safe product. I personally think with the number of people that do it across all socioeconomic statii that a great deal would be willing to spend the little extra to never have to worry about what they are getting ever. As a bonus: people go to jail for just having this stuff now. A LOT of people. By not having them incarcerated, paired with the sin tax, it's like a twice-over burst of tax income over what is present now.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually don't appreciate the thought of people smoking it. While I'm pro-legalization, I'm anti-weed, if that makes sense. I find it to be kind of dirty, like cigarettes, and just like I hate my friends getting drunk and acting silly, I hate my friends smoking weed and acting silly. I have nothing to do with it if I can help it at all. But what I've found from the people that I've known that have done it is that it really only uninhibits people, both in their behavior and their thought process. I've seen some really smart people come up with mind-blowing things while slightly under the influence of weed. Where I, personally, think the stigma comes from that weed makes you stupid is that a great majority of the people that smoke it are pretty stupid, so that stupidity REALLY shines when they are high. I could very easily be wrong about that, but that's just my opinion.

Now some of you guys' examples I think are a little farfetched. Phrog, I gotta disagree with you about the piloting thing, because in this case weed would be no different than any other controlled substance, you aren't supposed to be under the influence of anything while flying, so I don't think that point is applicable. I kind of get the feeling some of you are afraid that if it gets legalized, the floodgates will burst open and the entire country will enter into some kind of high state of mind, and I seriously don't think that would be the case. I personally think the actual number of users won't change a great deal, it'll just become easy to be public about it.

And ultimately, to the same effect of what CBT said, you won't find people dying from direct complications of "too much weed", unlike you do for a substance like alcohol.That's why I think it's absurd that it can be legal but people who have marijuana are looked upon like serious felons.

[Phrog_gunner]

Now don't get me wrong, I actually don't appreciate the thought of people smoking it. While I'm pro-legalization, I'm anti-weed, if that makes sense.

because in this case weed would be no different than any other controlled substance, you aren't supposed to be under the influence of anything while flying, so I don't think that point is applicable.

And ultimately, to the same effect of what CBT said, you won't find people dying from direct complications of "too much weed", unlike you do for a substance like alcohol.That's why I think it's absurd that it can be legal but people who have marijuana are looked upon like serious felons.

I agree, I'm not into pot, but I wouldn't blow a gasket if they legalized it. But using the theory of legalizing something reduces crime is completely moronic.

That is exactly my point about the piloting thing MrBluGruv. There is no test to prove that the pot in your system is from a month ago or if you smoked up right before the flight. So there is no way to prove that you aren't currently under the influence of it. How is that not applicable?

I also think that there will be socioeconomic repercussions of the legalization and taxation. I am all about personal liberties and would have no problem watching people blow their entire paycheck on drugs (I'm not saying everyone would do this). What I don't want is to have to listen to the people complain that it is not their fault they waste their entire paycheck on drugs, and blame it on the rich people who own the pot company profiting off of their choices. Gambling addicts are known to try to throw this kind of blame around too. I put it right up there with the lazy/stupid people that blame their economic situation on CEOs etc that make huge salaries off of their work. When it's their fault for not working harder to get a promotion or going to school to get an education and getting a better paying job and working their way up.

I commend you for adding your thoughts and logic so we can see where you are coming from. It makes for a much more educated discussion than "cause you are stupid, and I'm smart".

[FordNut]

Why would anybody buy it if it was legalized? Just grow your own.

If it was taxed and sold at retail stores, I suspect the black market for imported (smuggled) pot would still be strong since it would be untaxed and cheaper than the retail variety.

[Phrog_gunner]

Why would anybody buy it if it was legalized? Just grow your own.

If it was taxed and sold at retail stores, I suspect the black market for imported (smuggled) pot would still be strong since it would be untaxed and cheaper than the retail variety.

And since when does the government get anything right that has to do with money?

[Joe Walsh]

JEEZ guys!

I started this thread to celebrate a Washington 'Lifer' losing his permanent job in the Senate....
and it has devolved into a legalized drug dogfight....errr....debate.

Let's get back to voting out all long term incumbents!

[Phrog_gunner]

JEEZ guys!

I started this thread to celebrate a Washington 'Lifer' losing his permanent job in the Senate....
and it has devolved into a legalized drug dogfight....errr....debate.

Let's get back to voting out all long term incumbents!

My last post was the perfect transition for that. :P

[Leadfoot281]

Wait a second! Canada is a country?

[FordNut]

JEEZ guys!

I started this thread to celebrate a Washington 'Lifer' losing his permanent job in the Senate....
and it has devolved into a legalized drug dogfight....errr....debate.

Let's get back to voting out all long term incumbents!

I agree for the most part, but here lately my representatives have pretty much voted the way I wanted them to.

[kernie]

I respect a lot of you guys' opinions on this board, but with some of these statements I'm frankly disappointed. Let me lay out my logic as to why it would be a decent idea to "legalize" it:

If it became a subtance that was legal but monitored, it could mean that it would fall under the jurisdiction of some organization like the FDA or such which could certify clean pure product in a not-so-outrageous amount per "serving". It could be sold under license, much like alcohol, at certain locations. You could have a HUGE legitimate market opened up for producers to make it and to even include different flavors, like you find with shisha at hookah cafes for instance. It could have the sin tax applied to it, and generate hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of tax revenue every year. Sure, you say, but what incentive would people have to buy from a vendor and not some corner dealer or backyard grower? Well nothing much I guess, except when they buy from a legitimate vendor selling product certified by the FDA for instance they KNOW they are getting safe product. I personally think with the number of people that do it across all socioeconomic statii that a great deal would be willing to spend the little extra to never have to worry about what they are getting ever. As a bonus: people go to jail for just having this stuff now. A LOT of people. By not having them incarcerated, paired with the sin tax, it's like a twice-over burst of tax income over what is present now.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually don't appreciate the thought of people smoking it. While I'm pro-legalization, I'm anti-weed, if that makes sense. I find it to be kind of dirty, like cigarettes, and just like I hate my friends getting drunk and acting silly, I hate my friends smoking weed and acting silly. I have nothing to do with it if I can help it at all. But what I've found from the people that I've known that have done it is that it really only uninhibits people, both in their behavior and their thought process. I've seen some really smart people come up with mind-blowing things while slightly under the influence of weed. Where I, personally, think the stigma comes from that weed makes you stupid is that a great majority of the people that smoke it are pretty stupid, so that stupidity REALLY shines when they are high. I could very easily be wrong about that, but that's just my opinion.

Now some of you guys' examples I think are a little farfetched. Phrog, I gotta disagree with you about the piloting thing, because in this case weed would be no different than any other controlled substance, you aren't supposed to be under the influence of anything while flying, so I don't think that point is applicable. I kind of get the feeling some of you are afraid that if it gets legalized, the floodgates will burst open and the entire country will enter into some kind of high state of mind, and I seriously don't think that would be the case. I personally think the actual number of users won't change a great deal, it'll just become easy to be public about it.

And ultimately, to the same effect of what CBT said, you won't find people dying from direct complications of "too much weed", unlike you do for a substance like alcohol.That's why I think it's absurd that it can be legal but people who have marijuana are looked upon like serious felons.
MrBluGruv. thankyou for your honest opinions, same applies to CBT, it takes some guts to counter the prevailing thought patterns here.

I have a few comments on the 3 points i have highlighted,

#1, i think the sin tax revenue would be much more than one may think here, certainly many billions would pour in and combined with the savings of housing all those "criminals", i think the number would shock all, myself included. The cost to produce the legal weed would be quite low as well, perhaps 10% of the current street price, its not that hard to produce at all. So the sin tax could be 5 times the production cost and still be cheaper than any illegal producer. Does anyone produce cigs or booze to compete with the legal stuff? Safety is just an added bonus.

#2, it may be that the majority of pot smokers are stupid, i personaly dont think thats true but thats a matter of personal opinion. But reguardless they are still smoking and that isnt going to change.

#3 I agree, the idea that if you make it legal folks will flock to it is just more "reefer madness" type BS. Amsterdam has shown that.

Anyway dont anyone think that i want more people to smoke it, do i want my 15 year old son to smoke it? No, but it certainly doesnt scare me the way the hard stuff does, hard drugs vs pot, not even comparable.

Booze vs pot? Ask a cop who he would rather deal with. Ask social workers which causes more trouble.

Do i want to continue this debate?

no! he he.

:beer:

[FordNut]

#1, i think the sin tax revenue would be much more than one may think here, certainly many billions would pour in and combined with the savings of housing all those "criminals", i think the number would shock all, myself included. The cost to produce the legal weed would be quite low as well, perhaps 10% of the current street price, its not that hard to produce at all. So the sin tax could be 5 times the production cost and still be cheaper than any illegal producer. Does anyone produce cigs or booze to compete with the legal stuff? Safety is just an added bonus..

Actually it is so easy to produce that Johnny Appleseed could do it, just spread seeds all over the place and it grows like a weed. Not quite that simple but close to it. So why would anybody buy it and pay the sin taxes when they can grow it so easy? One big reason most people buy it now instead of growing their own is because of legal repercussions.

Not many produce cigarettes, but mostly because of extensive government involvement in all aspects of tobacco farming.

I do know some folks that make excellent corn likker.


#2, it may be that the majority of pot smokers are stupid, i personaly dont think thats true but thats a matter of personal opinion. But reguardless they are still smoking and that isnt going to change..

Smoke a doobie and see if you feel smarter.


#3 I agree, the idea that if you make it legal folks will flock to it is just more "reefer madness" type BS. Amsterdam has shown that.

I don't know why you're stuck on the old reefer madness references. Ever been to Amsterdam?

[Vortex]

Re term limits: if you don't like em, vote them out. If youre dumb enough to reelect 90 year old men that pee in their pants, you get what you deserve. Ive got no problem with good representatives getting reelected.

Re pot: if its legal to lay back in a barberchair while somebody dumps grain alcohol down your gullet, I dont see that legal marijuana will do that much more harm. Its already out there anyway, has been for almost 50 years, doesnt cause liver disease ect. and would reduce the expensive prison population by a bunch so I vote it be legalized.