Up in Smoke?

I haven’t formed a strong opinion before on Colorado’s legalizing pot.  Do I think it should be legal?  Yes but…am I in any substantial way supporting you & you lifestyle?  Do what you want with your life as long as it’s not on my dime!  But now I have formed an opinion & support it’s legalization, but I’m totally opposed to how it’s being done.  Only state licensed shops can legally sell there.  OK, so it’s all about revenue?  And how is that working out?

Colorado expected around $100 million in revenue, it’s looking closer to $40 million.  Maybe spring/summer will bring more tourist willing to fork out premium pricing to get a legal high.  Costs looks to be around $40 for an eight an ounce.  By comparison, street price ranges from $25 for an eight to $25 for an ounce.  (If my numbers are way off, understand I’m not a user & have no intention of doing much real world research, this is just what I’ve found on the internet)  I think my point is valid that the blackmarket is cheaper & will continue to prosper.

Marijuana has been illegal in every state until just recently.  Is there a state where it was not commonly available?

Reminds me of prohibition & it’s failures.  The could outlaw it, but like Pandora, that box had long been opened…  And the attempt created an environment where violent criminals could reap enormous rewards.  So to does the illegal drug trade.  Mexico is all but waging a civil war against the drug cartels who has the United States as their largest customer.  The US & it’s laws may not be the cause of their misery, buy we are the fuel that feeds it!

So if they have screwed it up in Colorado & everywhere else, what should be done?  I think with pot, simply legalize it and be done.  I would like to deny food stamps & disability to you & healthy to users, but if legal, anyone could grow it, so it would become very cheap.  Might even hurt alcohol sales…  It might also hurt other illegal drug sales & so weaken the cartels.

It’s been done in other countries & surprising to many, it gave good results.

http://www.thefix.com/content/decrim-nation-portugal-ten-years-later

One thing it doesn’t do & therefore is not likely to ever occur in the US, it doesn’t give the government revenue/power.  Colorado profits from their law.  Years ago we were told we needed seat belt laws to save lives.  A friend was complaining being stopped & ticketed for not wearing a seat belt a few weeks ago.  He wasn’t upset with the ticket or fine.  What bothered him was being stopped for that sole reason.  No speeding, weaving, drinking or other, just the seat belt.  He was wearing a bright yellow shirt so it was easy to spot.  He was just an easy mark to shake down for the states revenue machine.  And so it is with too many of our laws today.  So now I have to ponder, are we better off supporting our government or the cartels?  Seems either way we have to give money to the guys with guns & neither are accountable to you or me.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I think at some point, the US will make it legal. The revenue is far too appealing for that Cartel not to. This will upset the prison industrial complex and the Mexican cartels, but I’m sure the federal cartel will find a way to pay them off.

    • Not sure what will happen. There is a lot more talk about legalization, such as one of the candidate’s for DC’s mayor. I think all the reality shows on Moonshine Wars tell s a story. There was enough profit for them to bootleg whiskey. How much did we spend trying to catch bootleggers? Just to reap that mandated tax, not because the product was illegal. Supposedly NASCAR came into existence because of the need for fast cars to outrun government revenuers…..Funny thought to say to a liberal, we only have NASCAR because of the government!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        True on NASCAR, LOL. Sent you a couple pictures!

        • I probably just flunked the “red neck” test. Beechcraft ( a private aircraft manufacturer ) is a co sponsor in the races this weekend at the Texas Motor Speedway. As a Beechcraft owner and living here, I was offered infield passes for the races and all the beer and food I could eat and drink for the races this weekend…………………………..to which I declined.

          I guess I am officially not a “red neck”.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            I would love to drive one, but have ZERO interest in watching others drive them. Especially in circles.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        Absolutely true…..Richard Petty’s Father was a moonshine runner. The runners used to get together and hold races to see who had the fastest cars. Became formalized and named NASCAR.

  2. Mathius says:

    Reminds me of prohibition & it’s failures. The could outlaw it, but like Pandora, that box had long been opened… And the attempt created an environment where violent criminals could reap enormous rewards. So to does the illegal drug trade. Mexico is all but waging a civil war against the drug cartels who has the United States as their largest customer.

    I award you 10 Mathius Points.

    No, make it 20. You’ve earned it.

  3. So now I have to ponder, are we better off supporting our government or the cartels? Seems either way we have to give money to the guys with guns & neither are accountable to you or me.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/backwards_missouri_persecutes_the_ailing.html

    • gmanfortruth says:

      The drug cartels won’t arrest you for using. The federal cartel, just like the drug cartel, will shoot and kill you. Not much of a choice, sounds too much like the Federal elections 😀

      Just spent the last hour watching 3 trophy class gobblers strutting in the back yard trying to impress some hens. I will put up a picture when at the beginning of the next Open Mic thread. 🙂

  4. Regarding marijuana only…I think the cartels will be less and less relevant in the very near future. The medical marijuana laws opened the door for plenty of “caregivers” to grow their own. Then they have their side business selling to non patients. And with all the info out now via dispensaries, magazines, books, and the internet, grow booths are in more of your neighbors homes than you would care to know about. From what I hear..ahem..it’s hard to get any pot that isn’t grown right in your neighborhood, or at the very least, your own county. I’m sure the cartels are aware of this, wonder what they’re thinking?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I think we are about to find out just how pervasive the Cartel influence is on our local communities. There is some evidence out there that the Cartel controlled “local gangs” are positioning to control local supplies. That is to use their power of violence to intimidate and takeover local production and distribution.

      If this is true, we could see an INCREASE in related violent crime for awhile. In the long run I would expect this to decline as the shear numbers on the private side would bury the cartel controlled gangs.

      Unfortunately, the idiotic Left who has used “taxation” as a rationalization to legalize pot are playing into extending the criminal activity. TAXATION will drive a black market where the criminals will continue to thrive.

      If we truly want to eliminate the violence associated with Pot production and distribution we need to simply Legalize its procession and use. PERIOD.

      Which leads to the next question: What is next?

      Do we legalize Cocaine as well? How about Meth? Or Heroine??

      One more thought, of the cynical variety. Is it just coincidence that when our economic future in the USA is looking so dark that the politicians are suddenly willing to legalize drugs that will “medicate” the population in a way that will prevent active opposition?

      • prevent active opposition?

        Doubt it. Potheads are just as politically active as any other interest group. They’ve battled long and hard for this position. Heck, they’re on national TV now.

        Cartels v gangs…You are probably right about short term violence. But I think the violence would be more or less contained to known gang areas. You get out into the suburbs and it’s your average joe growing for a pretty tight circle. And there’s a whole lot more avg joe’s than gangsters.

  5. Just A Citizen says:

    Supreme Court upholds FREE SPEECH by striking down more of the offensive campaign finance laws. Left goes bonkers…………

    Now please pay close attention to the difference in the fundamental arguments of the two Justices quoted below. Notice how ONLY one is dealing with a Constitutional issue. While the other is ruling based on personal desires to control others. And they call themselves “liberal”. What a joke.

    Here is a clip from the article:

    “But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the controlling opinion in the 5-4 ruling, said that while the government has an interest in preventing corruption of federal officeholders, individuals have political rights that include being able to give to as many candidates as they want, in order to show support.

    “The limits deny the individual all ability to exercise his expressive and associational rights by contributing to someone who will advocate for his policy preferences,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “A donor must limit the number of candidates he supports, and may have to choose which of several policy concerns he will advance — clear First Amendment harms that the dissent never acknowledges.”

    Under the current limit, a donor can’t give more than $132,000 to candidates, parties and political action committees. Of that, just $48,600 can go directly to candidates.

    That means if someone wanted to give the maximum donation, he could only contribute to nine candidates.

    But defenders of the law had said if someone were allowed to give the maximum to every political candidate and party, it could amount to $3.5 million — which could then be redistributed to other campaigns by the candidates and parties themselves. Campaign finance hardliners said they feared those candidates and parties could then collude and siphon the money back to a single candidate the donor had wanted to benefit in the first place, which would effectively break the contribution limit.

    “We think the risk of corruption is real,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. had told the justices when the case was argued in October.

    Justice Roberts’ ruling was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion joining in the judgment, though he would have gone further in undoing the limit on how much can be given to individual campaigns.

    The court’s four liberal-leaning justices dissented, in an opinion written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer that blasted the majority ruling, calling it devastating to democracy.

    “It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign,” Justice Breyer wrote. “Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election [Commission], today’s decision eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”

    The ruling comes four years after the justices decided that Citizens United case, a 5-4 ruling that opened the door for interest groups to spend unlimited money on issue ads, though they are still limited in their contributions to candidates themselves.”

    Hey Justice Breyer, “democratic legitimacy” REQUIRES “individual Freedom” to exercise one’s choices regarding their involvement in the “democratic” political system. In short, FREE SPEECH.

    Why is it the self proclaimed “left/liberal” types scream to high heaven to protect the basest individual behavior as a RIGHT but don’t extend that support for people who are active in the political system?

    Is it part of their basic “Victim/Protector” mentality wherein they view themselves as the only righteous guardians for the downtrodden?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      IRONIC, or perhaps MORONIC, Leftist comment of the day. Regarding the SCOTUS decision on campaign finance.

      “Clearly….elections do NOT matter, not when you have a Supreme Court with an agenda who is determined to undermine the vote of the people. ”

      It never occurs to this dolt that his support of SCOTUS overturning STATE REFERENDUMS on GAY MARRIAGE amounts to a Supreme Court undermining the vote of the people.

  6. Putting aside the Libertarian arguments that you should be able to pretty much damn well do anything you want to do, we have the “Old School” view, presented by no less a luminary than Sgt. Joe Friday, “Dum tee dum dum, dum tee dum dum tee”.

    By the way, I am not laughing. I believe most of what he is saying mostly through that personal experience thing. Lotta dead friends in the “60’s and ’70’s.

    • I dunno SK. I’ve always had a hard time with this argument, pot being the gateway drug. I’ve seen some things in my day too. My experience is that I only know 2 people who have died from overdose. Believe me when I say I know hundreds who smoke pot. Most of those people, I’d bet 90%, have no interest in the other drugs. I also know hundreds who drink alcohol, but do not smoke pot, but are messed up on prescription drugs, or street drugs. So take pot out of the equation..maybe it’s alcohol that’s the gateway drug.

      • Anita, think I was typing about the same time as you. Nice to have another thinker agreeing with me (or am I agreeing with you?) And how has this winter been for you? NOAA posted on 4/1/14 this was the coldest winter ever recorded in Chicago. Bet you & Kathy had similar (‘course she didn’t notice with the Badgers kicking @ss)

    • SK,

      Great clip. Guy had style. Respectfully I’m going to disagree. I think they have debunked the studies showing pot was/is the gateway drug. Look at alcohol & tobacco, both addictive drugs. And yet a lot of people smoke & drink but have no desire to experiment with pot.. Maybe if it were legal, but maybe not. The link to Portugal shows they have not suffered for complete legalization of all drugs. Smokers know they have a one in four chance of cancer, yet still smoke. Drinkers risk their health. SO maybe like them, drug users would be users, not addicts. Don’t most people who drink do so without getting plastered? If not then why aren’t the cops waiting outside every bar making mass arrests? Because most people who drink, do so responsibly. As for the drunks, this might be a very bad thing for them, but it’s their choice what bottle or other they crawl into, no matter what you or I do…

      • I am reluctant to compare the US to anybody else. We are a very diverse group. Be it health care, gun control, crime, drugs, gambling, whatever, our diversity makes us different. As my old Daddy used to say talking about the lines in 1950’s Britain or 1960s-’70s-’80s Russia no American would ever queue up repeatedly for anything. They’d burn the damn place down first. Another gem from Grandpa Nick.

  7. To quote the late Andy Rooney, “Didja ever wonder why?”

    Seriously I would appreciate anyone’s take on this.. I have a pet theory as to why J. Edgar Hoover deliberately avoided going after organized crime. Much has been made, especially by the Kennedy supporters of how Bobby pushed him to finally act. I think that J. Edgar figured it was better to have one group which did have some standards running things like drugs rather than throw it open to everyone. If the mob remained as powerful; as it was, there would have been no Mexican, Cuban, Dominican, Guatemalan or Colombian cartels operating within the US. An awful lot of dead bodies maybe but no cartels.

    One can effectively argue that legalization will destroy those groups (That is the ONLY reason I would support legalization) but then again, has legalized gambling eliminated illegal gambling?

  8. Sedgewick says:

    ” The incidents and characters portrayed in this motion picture are purely fictional, and any similarity to actual occurrences and living or deceased persons is coincidental.

    The motion picture you are about to see may startle you. I would not have been possible, otherwise, to sufficiently emphasize the frightful toll of the new drug menace which is destroying the youth in alarmingly increasing numbers.

    Marijuana is that drug – A violent narcotic – an unspeakable scourge – The real public enemy number one!

    It’s first effect is sudden, violent, uncontrollable laughter, then come dangerous hallucinations – space expands, time slows down, almost stands still. Fixed ideas come next, conjuring up mysterious extravagances, followed by emotional disturbances, the total inability to direct thoughts, the loss of all power to resist physical emotion, leading finally to acts of shocking violence, …ending often in incurable insanity.

    In picturing it’s soul destroying effects, no attempt was made to equivocate. The scenes and incidents, while fictionalized, for the purposes of this story, are based on actual research into the results of marijuana addiction. If their stark reality will make you think, will make you aware that something must be done to wipe out this ghastly menace, then this picture will not have failed in its purpose.

    …because the dread marijuana may be reaching forth next for your son or daughter, …or yours…or yours. ”

    • gmanfortruth says:

      My friend, pot was not made illegal because of the BS in that movie, it was outlawed as a political favor to the cotton industry. He who spend the most to get people elected, win, those who don’t , well, lose 😉

      • Sedgewick says:

        My intentions were more about getting a good laugh at the ridiculousness of the propaganda.

        You are correct though. It was largely influenced by lobby groups. The movie was about mustering support from the public…or rather scaring the hell out of them.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          My bad, I misread your comments. Your correct, the movie is insane and doesn’t show reality. That movie could be a great example of propaganda that started the SHEEPLE movement! 😀

        • Sorry dude, wasn’t sure what you were implying so just ignored. Too little time to watch an hour long video right now. I do like the humor. A sad reality is because of these scare tactics, hemp is illegal. They couldn’t stop at pot & had to include hemp, which is a very useful plant.

          • Sedgewick says:

            It’s actually quite entertaining. It was meant to be serious but more closely resembles a spoof.

            When you consider how it was criminalized as well as it’s social acceptance, it is somewhat odd that it wasn’t overturned much sooner. And, as you mentioned, the industrial uses are many.

            Legalization, such as in Colorado and California, is just another means for government to control it and generate revenue, a plan B (if you will).

            If it were completely decriminalized and treated the same as tomatoes, the market would be reduced to selling the convenience of processing it. Why pay or bother scouting for it when you can grow it in your yard or like a houseplant for pennies?

            I will speculate that because it is so readily available and already fairly cheap, the black market will eventually out-compete the higher priced regulated and taxed marijuana once the novelty of being able to buy it at the local store wears off. There will still be a legal market, but not compared to the black market.

  9. @ JAC…..and others that might appreciate this…..I live in a gated community. A nice little set of town homes where everybody minds their own business…………well, ALMOST everyone. A couple of years ago, a single New York transplant bought one of the town homes and moved in. Nice enough lady…not Texas friendly…..but nice. We liked her well enough that since she is alone and with not much to do, we elected her as President of our homeowners group. She had the time and, being “yankee” has the push to get things done.

    A couple of days ago, my doorbell rings and she asked to speak to me. Of course, I consented. She had a request from the gardening crew that mows and trims and keeps the grounds clean. She requested that I not carry or wear my weapons when I walk to and from my car….She said it makes the ground crew nervous and that they might quit. Well, this old Texan was slightly taken aback……blinks a couple of times…..takes a deep breath….fighting hard not to contort into hysterical laughter……and politely says, no maam, that is not going to happen. She then asked, and this is no joke, “can’t you take one for the association so we do not lose them?” I told her…..no maam, you better get used to being in Texas. It is GUN country.

    They might quit, she said to which I replied and told her that the only reason that they are nervous is because they most likely are here illegally….to which I take exception. I am a licensed holder and I also carry a Federal permit as well until October. IF they quit…then that is the way of it. They are lucky in the first place that I do not say anything and I might now…since you brought it up. However….I will not conceal my weapons nor take precautions when they are present.

    A couple of days later, they were out there again and I could not pass up the opportunity. Not only did I carry my holster over my shoulder, I also carried a rifle to my car…….of course everyone just sort of looked around as I spoke to them in very clear precise Spanish and told them good morning.

    That was a little while ago….I noticed today…..they are still here.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13

      Good morning Sir.

      Me think it was not the grounds crew that was nervous!

      Unless as you say, they are illegal and associate guns with Law Enforcement.

      There is of course an easy way to tell. Don’t wear Guns in the open. Just wear a hat with the letters ICE on it. 🙂

  10. And this from the White House…..changing the term Unemployment Rate to Liberation from work Rate……………

  11. The way it began … and the way it is now … from start to a revolution that will ultimately topple it … government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich … http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303847804579477280434759494?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303847804579477280434759494.html

    • Just A Citizen says:

      So why should I be “limited” by the Govt regarding how many politicians I can support??

      How is that FREEDOM in your mind?

      And PLEASE point to YOUR EXAMPLE of a Govt that is NOT run by the rich and/or successful. Where has your precious “revolution” ever produced anything other than what you babble about?

      • Murphy's Law says:

        Great question, JAC!

        How about it, Charlie?

        Murf

        • It might be a “great” question “murf” if you kept your eyes closed … where is the liberty in allowing 1% of the population to run the country? That’s the question you libertarians, etc., need to answer first. Even BF (anarchists in general) will agree that yielding power to anyone (the crowd or the few) is NOT liberty. Remember, this isn’t an anarchist state … we’re a so-called democracy … 1% rules and that atrocity is further enhanced by a hand-picked court (picked by wealthy men) to decide what is legal/just … nice system … so full of liberty too 🙂 So, Murf, how about it?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Once again you play dodge ball.

            I asked you a direct question. How about a real answer for a change?

            • JAC, your question is the essence of dodge ball. If you can’t figure that out, I don’t know how I could help you. Then again, I doubt you want to figure it out … from fear it would make your entire world view crumble … you’re all for 1% rule … if there’s nobody there to tell you what YOUR liberty is, you’re lost … you enjoy marching in step … it’s all you know.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                More TROLL like drivel.

                Why is it you cannot or will not directly address a question?

                You seem smart enough. So why is it you avoid spending just a small amount of time actually trying to put together a rational argument. Or even a cogent answer to a simple question?

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        We are not living in any unique time. Congress has always been trying to grapple with campaign financing for time in memorial.
        Headline……Eight Candidates for President testify and reveal how much they’ve spent.
        Republicans: Senator, Norris from Neb. $6.00, Borah from Idaho, $0.00, Curtis from Kansas, $11,685, Goff from WVA, $60.00…..Democrats: George from Georgia, $10.00-$15.00, Walsh from Montana, $1000.00, Hitchcock from Neb. $1744.00, Cordell Hull from Tenn. $1000,00……..The two front runners Herbert Hoover and Al Smith did not testify. They were heavy into radio and films to campaign.
        New York Times, May 8, 1928

        • No, it’s not unique by any means. I just wondering if any law gets passed that doesn’t somehow butter someone’s bread. Anti drug laws insure illegal drug profits. Anti gun laws insure illegal gun profits. Campaign limits? Obama raised almost two billion dollars in his two presidential runs. Wanna bet someone didn’t profit (and not just Obama)? They are also constantly re-districting, and the corruption s blatant.

    • Do you vaguely remember Al Gore and the passel of checks he collected at the Buddhist Temple one time? Nothing has changed. While the Koch brothers (evil incarnate) will be able to give more, so will Steve Speilberg, Bill Gates and George Soros (pure benevolent enlightenment). It all neatly balances out and provides more employment at the networks, Madison Avenue and the Post Office. .

      Hey, does anybody know what will happen to Dinish D’Souza now? Seems that if the law were unconstitutional those violating it should not be prosecuted. Not like it was amended or revoked but it was thrown out and should have never existed. Actually what an interesting legal question. If you swear and affirm something which has a penalty attached for lying, can you be prosecuted if the rule/regulation/law you swore to is declared invalid?

  12. If you haven’t been following the story, a liberal anti-gun state senator was caught gun running. He has ties to the drug cartels. He/they think more gun laws would be a good thing. Using government force to make illegal what was legal & common so criminals can profit. Isn’t this the same thing as has been done with drugs?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/04/the_poster_boy_for_liberal_hypocrisy_ignored_by_national_media_but_outrages_san_francisco.html

  13. Murphy's Law says:

    Gman, or anyone else who knows…how do you post a picture or cartoon here? I can’t figure it out….

    Murf

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      Can you articulate WHY you think this “wealth gap” matters in terms of actual outcomes in peoples lives??

      Or is it really just a nice Rhetorical toy to use in the Class Warfare mantra of the Marxist propaganda machine?

      • Now you’re digging deep, JAC … the Marxist propaganda machine … is that the opposite of “work hard and you’ll be rewarded?” … capitalism is speeding (and I mean speeding) toward it’s inevitable outcome … absolute and violent class warfare … it’s just a matter of watching the clock now, boyo …

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Dodger………… that is all you have.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          Charlie…..I like not involving myself in any conversation you are involved in. I find them quite tedious and I dropped out for a bit due to your BS. OK….please back up ANY Marxist Utopia that exist or or has in the past for any lengthy period of time. Include the Shakers, I can’t think of any. The Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin destroyed a flawed system that was trying to change, but they assasinated anybody who attempted change to a more enlightened social structure. Tell me how many people did that system “MURDER” to retain power including any person who became disallusioned ie Leon Trotsky, Ice climbing ax in the forehead beacuse he was a threat to Stalin. 20-40 million dead only to try and preserve their ELITE status. Another 20 million dead when attacked by another socialist regime. History of Lenin, Family one of the power elites. His Father created the public school system in Russia. His Mother was a Rothchild and they lived on a vast estate. His bother planned and participated in the attempted assasination of Alexander the 3rd. Lenin, once gaining power was far more ruthless than the any Czar dared to go. There was no debate because he knew better. You disagreed you died. If you were a threat to the elite, you died. China…was conservatively 100 million dead under Mao. Even Ho Chi Minh advocated a STRONG economic system to advance the social well being of the people. One can not exist without the other. All Marxist regimes came into being with violent revolution as advocated by Marx, who was a loser and supported by a wealthy guy by the name of Engels. All Marxist/Socialist regimes continued in existence only as long as the people were divided and only the government had guns and committed unlimited violence and terror upon the people to retain control. China has to deal with how many billion people, but they grasp the concept of profit and market share very well. Even Viet Nam has a robust economy due to capitalism…..Now I will say that we have been warned of a soft tyranny versus a hard tyranny as listed above. The end results are the same. The elites run the society and retain power only by doing the job they were supposed to do, or retain power even through their incompetance via violence upon the people. We are in the US in between those parameters. With 50% of the population getting the goodies (bread and circus) term from the Roman days, and actually the 1% providing most of those goodies…it will collapse regardless, because there is not enough money, fiat or otherwise, to sustain any utopian society. As much as some people believe that everyone can be molded into uniformity regardless of effort or outcome. Human’s herd to an extent but are unique in deciding individual wants and desires. And will cease working if they see that their labor is stolen and given to those who do not labor. One size does not fit all to coin a phrase. The current marxist/socialist proponants are trying to eliminate any individual result or desire. The current socialist/progressive administration, including those in the past going back to TR and beyond are accomplishing a two class society again. The middle class was a relatively new social class concept and is systematically being destroyed by government policy. My Father used to say, that ’69/’70 was the last years that he actually gained in lifestyle with work effort. After that he maintained status quo and never had any increase in lifestyle, even though he quadrupled his salary until retirement in the late 80’s as an executive for IBM…..the price of everything since the late 60’s has gone up roughly 10-11X. Big Mac’s, Gas, median housing, bread, milk, college you name it I will back it up with hard data. The university I went to in CO cost me $3,000 and some change per year as an out of state student with room and board. The current rate at the same school is $33,000 for the same criteria. I easily afforded any college tuition with part-time and summer work except the Ivy League. Throughout high school I NEVER worked for any business. I had my own landscaping business. I competed against the Japanese landscapers instead of the Mexicans who were predominately (skilled) masons and tile workers and not cheap labor at that. Excellent workers and at the top of their trade. They were the go to people in other words. I employed 3 other people and I still cleared between $1,000 and $2,000 per month to myself after taxes ending in the summer of 1969. Did I neglect to say that was after school and weekends and summers. That was as a 16-17 year old. Now moving the minimum wage to 10+ an hour would actually statistically make sense due to inflation, except for one big difference, NOBODY in 1970 dreamed that a job at MacDonalds as a career or full time expecting to live and raise a family on it. It was an after school get some spending money job. Entrepeneurship, self employment, manufacturing was the place to go. Punch cards were a pain in the ass and data processing in its infantcy. Mid 80’s economists boldly stated the we are no longer a (DUMB) manufacturing economy but a (SERVICE) economy. Most practical inovation came out of the manufacturing line not some dreamer in a lab. Not that might not be the germ of something in the future. Edison said 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration. Last year I got to know one of the heads of the IMF. He flat out said, that if we, the United States, do not within the next 10 years regain our manufacturing status that we held 20-40 years ago we are FINISHED as a nation. One of God’s little jokes was the oil reserves in the M/E. When the trade routes to the east were cut after the collapse of the Roman Empire and when Constantinople fell Europe was in rough shape. Forget the religious wars for now. When the explorers by passed the M/E trade routes the Ottoman Empire was in borrowed time because they produced NOTHING. Even today if the foreign workers would leave Saudi Arabia or the Emirates their ecomonies would collapse. Because the natives do not work for the most part…….enough said…..prove to me any socialist/marxist group that is truly working as defined by Marx/Engels/Lenin/Mao and not already collapsed or on the verge of collapse or any society before Marx that tried. “I’ll give you a cookie” as Don Rickle’s used to say. I do have an entire wall of political and economic theory books dating from the 1700’s – today if you choose to truly debate. Not wikipedia or internet sources.

          • A beautiful analysis and in keeping with just about everything I have experienced since the late 1960’s. same deal here. Paid for college with part scholarship, part time school year job and summer job. Never wanted to or had to ask the folks for a dime

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Dale, all the misery that Communism caused is flatly ignored by those who espouse Communism for this country. It’s more important for them to talk about the killing of Indians and slavery so as to ignore the truth about Communism. Been down this rabbit hole too many times. Debating people who are dead from the neck up is a waste of time. 🙂

  14. “More TROLL like drivel.”

    Is this really all you can think of, JAC? You seem smart enough … set the tumblers of your mind in action … why is it you claim to love liberty, yet assume the 1% running the show doesn’t infringe on your liberty?

    • Charlie,

      It looks as if you haven’t had any comment on the subject I posted. Of course, you can talk about whatever you want. I must admit it sometimes is downright insulting in my opinion. This wasn’t any full blown article, not much effort put into it, I kinda thought, why bother if it’s not going to be appreciated? But there has been some good discussion which made it worthwhile. SK doesn’t agree with me & I respect that and his experience that he shares on the subject.

      Someone wondered if it might be deliberate that the liberals controlling our government were advancing the drug cause to pacify a portion of our population. Were would that fit in you Marxist/Socialist world? Power to the people & lets all get high or no drugs until every belly is full & we all watch the same TV show on identical TV’s…..

      • Interesting. Can’t for the life of me believe that they are bright enough to have planned it. Seems more like it is something that has evolved. If you keep the folks fed just enough, housed just enough, taken care of just enough, and doped (mentally and physically) just enough. You produce a population which would be very susceptible to the idea that it could all be taken away from them. This makes them docile for you and violent towards your opposition.

        Perhaps the Opium war thing with China and the Brits is instructive. One could also add the fact that during the dark old days in Dickensonian England the gin flowed like water and at the end of the Soviet Union the Vodka did likewise. Was it “self medication” or was there a tacit approval?

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          The Opium Wars were all about the drain on the British treasury. There were lots of goods that the English wanted from the Chinese, who demanded and got silver as payment. There were relatively few items that the Chinese wanted from the west. The use of opiates was severely dealt with in China. The wars forced the sale of this product upon the Chinese, reversed the trade imbalance and seized lands that became Hong Kong, simplistic summary. Balance of trade.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Charlie

      As usual, your entire accusation is based on a false premise.

      While you still FAIL to answer a simple question.

  15. As a former Pot smoker and Grower, I can tell you for a fact that even if they DO legalize Marijuana it will always be cheaper and more plentiful on the so called Black Market.

    As a matter of fact, if it IS legalized, I may begin to start growing it again. 😉

    • Cheaper? For sure. Seems it grows like a weed, at least in the south. You hear about guys planting a crop, not even on their land, and then having to defend it when the word leaks out & everybody wants to help themselves. I wonder what would happen if someone were to play Johnny Appleseed & spread pot all over the US?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        In today’s day and age, pot can grown most anywhere, and cheaply. I can grow pound after pound where I live. I don’t, I like freedom to much, plus I don’t smoke it!

      • When I used to grow, you used to plant 3 crops. One for the Law. One for the Thieves, and one for yourself. You usually got at least one of them, and every great now and then all three.

        But you NEVER told anyone that you were growing or especially where. Some people just had rather go look for yours than they had to grow their own.

        Mind you now; I never dealt any. I grew it to keep from having to buy it. And I put a good bit of work in it also. I had generations of seeds. If you don’t take care of it, it will still grow, but it’s not near as good.

      • Dale A. Albrecht says:

        The fastest way to clear out Fort Collins was when the Feds would burn the gullies full of the “Demon” weed, including the police all standing around. Source of the bonfires were the hemp plants naturally growing left over from the industries from where burlap bags and rope used to be made from. But made illegal due to the by-product of the leaves and buds. If you personally had it in your possession 20 years of incarceration at the local Federal pen.

        • Dale A. Albrecht says:

          CU in Boulder was known as Crystal City, maybe still is, due to the excellent chemistry department where the students had a good business going with LSD and other methods of better living through chemistry.

  16. I am sure this Fort Hood shooting will be another case of “work place violence” in this age of denial and political correctness.

    • I have heard that the shooter is dead……..good…no trial.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Possibly something new, gay man rejected by fellow service people! Just guessing of course.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Fortunately that’s not the case. Just a sick young man who lost it. Sadly, more people die and are injured in a “no gun zone”.

          • Yep……let’s see. Every town has a police force trained in weapons. every policeman carries a weapon. IRS agents carry weapons, EPA agents carry weapons, Highway patrol carry weapons. INS carries weapons. FBI carries weapons. CIA carries weapons, NSA carries weapons……………………..do you see workplace shootings in these areas?

            Now, we have a military where a cook is better qualified to carry weapons than any of the above,,,,,and they are not allowed to carry their weapons on post. This could have been stopped.

            Thank you Bill Clinton…you started this. Thank you George Bush II…you did not stop it. Thank you Obama….you did not stop it. All three of you are equally culpable and are as guilty as the shooter,

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Gun free zones are nothing but death zones.

              • Murphy's Law says:

                It is a cruel irony and a crime, IMO, that the men and women who are trained there to protect the nation are not allowed to protect themselves. This guy would not have even tried it there at Ft Hood if the soldiers had been able to carry weapons.

                Murf

              • Dale A. Albrecht says:

                Gman….do you remember the Marine baracks bombing in Beirut. Just so nobody would be shot, the guards had their magazines for their rifles on the opposite side of the sentry post. And this was in a war zone. Much less no barricades to stop any vehicle from going up the ramp. Result 241 dead. Should we have been there is another question…..NO

                Even at Sigonella in the late 70’s all the security guards were “deadly” serious about base security and that included the aircap. Deadly use of force used in both areas, including a civilian airliner masking two Libyan MIGS.

            • Dale A. Albrecht says:

              Sir….Is having the bases continued as “Gun Free Zones” an off-shoot of what the DHS feels is the psychological make-up of the soldiers returning from combat tours? That is a loose cannon about ready to explode? Had an old cartoon from the 70’s and it had a soldier in a “fire extinguisher” box labeled “in case of fire break glass” …….just thinking, your thoughts?

  17. Hillary Clinton/Michelle Obama 2016

    I’m seeing the bumper stickers on the internet today. Just shoot me now.

  18. gmanfortruth says:
  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Something seems to be missing from this story. Scratching head………..can’t figure out what it is, or is not in this case.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20140402/NEWS01/304020159/Mob-beats-driver-who-accidentally-hit-boy-with-pickup-in-Detroit

    File under Gmans BARBARIANS at the gate category.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      What’s missing is why do the parents let their kids run around in the streets? Child endangerment anyone? But yes, barbarians for sure. Pack heat and solve this problem! 😀

  20. gmanfortruth says:
  21. Just A Citizen says:
    • gmanfortruth says:

      THis is the kind of thing that is happening on a daily basis. To stop it, cops should be fired for being stupid, period. A false arrest would qualify as false arrest, add violence of any form to it, cops go to jail. Either they know their job or not. If they don’t, have someone available who can answer the legal questions they need. Sorry, but many cops today are nothing but jackboot thugs.

      • I don’t see a problem here. The kid could have been been more cooperative. Cop says put it down, he could have put it down and things would have turned out differently. Looks like it’s a case of who trumps who..state or local. Local law says no loaded long guns in public. G, you’re all for support of local laws, why are the cops the bad guys here?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Anita, any gun law denying a person who can legally own a gun the right to carry said gun for personal protection is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment is clear as it end with “shall NOT be infringed”. There is nothing after that that says “except”. Texas law also denies municipalities to pass laws that usurp that particular law, as it’s written. San Antonio not only violated State law, but also the Constitution. They should all be fired and sent to prison for 10 years for being stupid 😀

          • The second Amendment doesn’t say he can walk down a public street with a loaded long gun. City ordinance says he may not be in public with a loaded long gun. The question is weather their state law is constitutional. Otherwise the cop was following local ordinance. The kid brought that on himself didn’t he? Would you have acted as he did?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Anita, the Constitution prohibits GOVERNMENT from screwing with the rights of the people. It is quite clear that “shall not be infringed” prohibits GOVERNMENT from any laws that do so. This explains it much better than I can 🙂

              In a Tuesday press release provided to TheBlaze, Open Carry Texas argued the ordinance under which Vichique was arrested “directly violates state pre-emption laws pertaining to firearms as contained in Local Government Code 229.001(a)(1), which states: “a municipality may not adopt regulations relating to…the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of firearms, air guns, ammunition, or firearm.”

              San Antonio Ordinance Section 21-16 states: “It shall be unlawful for any person, other than duly authorized peace officers, to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun on any public street within the city or in a motor vehicle while the same is being operated on any public street within the city.”

              The pro-gun group also accused the San Antonio Police Department of lacking the “proper training, experience and common sense” on guns and Texas law.

              Read more at http://lastresistance.com/5281/texan-tazed-arrested-carrying-rifle-shoulder/#JMKedj1QHLlBGOAJ.99

              • Yep, I read all that. I’m still saying it depends what law is trump.

                But you didn’t answer my questions. 🙂 Was that the right thing for the kid to do…all the way around..because it just looks to me like he’s baiting the cops. Why would a young kid just be out walking with a loaded long gun at night? Would you disobey the cops request to put the gun down? I’m just thinking things didn’t have to escalate that far with some cooperation.. If he was out to make a point he could have done it while playing it cool.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Maybe the kid wanted arrested so that the law could be challenged in court. For now, we don’t know what he was thinking. This is becoming the norm. People are standing up to the BS laws that politicians pass likely knowing they are UnConstitutional, but also know that it takes a ton of money to fight it. Just another example of how the Elite Ruling Class has infected even the lower levels of government.

                One thing that I thought of the other day. As long as it takes a case to get to SCOTUS, it would be easy for the Feds to totally outlaw guns and send out the jackboots to confiscate them. The damage would be done before any ruling is ever even argued in front of SCOTUS.

                Back to the kid in the video. He wasn’t harming anyone, period. It’s debatable if he were violating any law, if he were the first cop would have likely arrested him. Was the kid smart? YES. We should all have the courage to exercise our rights. If they can limit the 2nd Amendment, then they can limit the 1st as well. Basically, if one looks at some of the gun laws, it could easily be said that there can be equal laws limiting speech of all kinds, including political dissent. So when someone claims we need gun control (or any stupid laws invented because some sissy coward is afraid of guns) then just remind them that if the Right to keep and bare arms can be limited, then so can free speech and free religion. Because once the 2nd is gone, the 1st is sure to follow rather quickly.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Anita

          Are you claiming it is OK to use a Tazer on someone who is NOT posing a threat nor is resisting arrest?

          Why should he put it down when he knows he has a right to carry it? The situation is defused by one cop and then arbitrarily escalated by the one who shows up late.

          Why shouldn’t the cops be the one who have to have “some cooperation”?

          • I had to go back and read about the taser, missed that part at first. I watched the video and thought the cops just took him down. So, I agree the second cop was wrong. Seemed like the first cop was stalling for backup because the kid wouldn’t put the gun down. If a cop asks you politely to put a weapon down, you really should put the weapon down. It didn’t have to go that far. If you want an agreeable solution to result (like less police/ gov/gun control) then there has to be some give and take. Mutual cooperation. It wouldn’t have hurt the kid to cooperate. And how can you fault the first cop? He’s following city ordinance.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              If one is not harming another, the cops have NO BUSINESS even talking to him, much less giving orders. We the people need to stop this BS from happening by standing up and telling the cops to read the MFing Constitution, particularly Amendments 1, 2 , and 4!

              • plainlyspoken says:

                I am not going to get into a long debate with you G, simply because I am on day 3 in the hospital and under the influence of the pain meds they have me on – but, under you “no restrictions” theory then any nutcase or convicted – violent – felon may possess firearms as well – of any kind or type, whether or not there is a valid reasoning for a particular weapon to be owned by someone.

                And to that unrestricted thinking – I don’t and won’t agree.

            • Anita, if he would have put the weapon down, he would have been arrested immediately. Their intent was to arrest him no matter what based on the claims that he had pointed the gun at people whether true or not or a false flag on the part of the officer. The beef I have with the kid is the bullet in the chamber. Tis a violation of good firearm safety practices. It may have been legal per TX law but not a good practice.

              • The kid was obviously out to make his own statement since he was so well versed about the constitution. He kept saying ‘am I free to go’ but he kept staying. I don’t see the problem, until he got tased, of course. He knew exactly what would happen if the cops showed, so take the arrest like a man, and make your point from there. (the kid, not you TRay).

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Can the HYPOCRISY of this Administration being more obvious than this? On the other hand, maybe DHS will BAN Mr. Obama from entering the USA next time he venture off shore.

    http://t.entertainment.msn.com/nigella-lawson-banned-from-flying-to-us?toc=celebs

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    ROTFLMAO

    http://news.msn.com/us/native-american-tribe-may-seek-to-hunt-bison-inside-yellowstone

    Lets see if anyone can figure out why! Charlie Stella, lets see what you can come up with!

    • Dale A. Albrecht says:

      All they have to do is put in a permit to the EPA saying that they wish to help enforce Obama’s planned methane gas emmissions that are a componant of green house gases needing requlation.

    • “Some people ask why? I ask, why not?” Hey, if the Aleuts can kill whales, why not allow the Nez Pierce to hunt bison. Seems they cull the herd anyway or would that be goring someone else s ox?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        They would be goring someone else’s ox, or buffalo in this case.

        My issue is not the hunting of buffalo within the park. It is in the claim that the Nez Perce have some “claim” on hunting there.

        The NP had no treaty rights to hunt in Yellowstone that I know about. They did travel cross country to hunt buffalo with the Crow. All the while being hunted by the Blackfeet on both legs of the trip. The hunting was mostly north of what is now Yellowstone Park.

        There are some “jumps” which are now State Parks and Historical sights along the interstate highway between Billings and Butte.

        All Nez Perce attempts to claim hunting rights east of the Bitterroot Mtns is contested by the Blackfeet and of course, visa’ versa. They have also been challenged by the Shoshone tribe, specifically the Sheepeater and Lemhi bands, the latter being those folks where Sacajawea found her brother on her trip with Lewis and Clark.

        • Wait, wait, wait! Are these not the same peace loving noble savages that our Charlie takes into his heart so dearly? they must be acting this way due to their genetic pollution by white western European stock. Fortunately I am of eastern European stock and probably have more genetic material in common with them than I do with Prince Charles. In other
          words, don’t blame me!

  24. gmanfortruth says:

    Why would the government, mainly the ATF, attempt to get records illegally? How many have they already gotten that way?

    http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/atf-agent-attempts-illegally-scan-forms-pac-n-arms-multiple-times-threatens-owner-license-revocation/

  25. gmanfortruth says:

    This should tell you everything you need to know about the Left Wingers: http://eaglerising.com/5475/cancer-patient-loses-healthcare-coverage-liberals-attack/

    • This ad is a few weeks old. There was quite kerfuffle over it when it came out. She is another late to the game former supporter now opponent. Had these people listened when everyone we were all trying to tell them that this was not the answer, we might have been able to stop it in time. Too soon poor, too late smart.

  26. gmanfortruth says:

    There’s a video going around the net about some off duty marines chasing down a protestor in New Mexico because of them waiving an upside down US flag. For the record, I’m disappointed in the Marines in that video for failing to live up to their oath to defend the Constitution. They were WRONG and deserve discipline, or at the very least a long boring course on the 1st Amendment, one of the things they took an oath to protect.

  27. What is all the hoopla about the SCOTUS ruling on campaign donations? According to everything that I have seen, Dems out pace Repubs anyway….

    If I read this correctly, I think the SCOTUS stopped short. There are still limits to the amounts you can donate to individuals but no limits on who you can donate to….in other words no aggregate…..now…what is the problem besides buying influence which has been going on since politics has been in play all over the world. It should be my right to donate to whom I wish, verdad?

    • but, but..the Kochs! Saw this on The Five last night. Beckel was all over the Kochs. Bolling pointed out that Soros donated waaaaay more than the Kochs. Crickets from Beckel.

  28. JAC, the other day you posted about the driver of a pickup who hit a kid, got out to help the kid, and was beaten by some bystanders. Here’s a clip of the kid getting hit. The pickup driver, turns out, was white..the kid black..and the mob was black. I’m sure you know what the comment section is looking like. Just figured you’d be interested.
    http://www.freep.com/article/20140403/NEWS01/304030131/mob-stole-motorist-money-and-credit-card-after-beating-him-unconscious

    • Typical mentality….typical.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Anita

      I asked the question because that was my suspicion. Otherwise why would the newspaper not mention the race anywhere. It is a sad statement about where we are today, that I even suspected such a “cover up”.

      Thanks for the update.

  29. One of you tech saavy texters……what does O mean in text language

    • depends on the context…O for ounce of weed..or O for ahem..Orgasm. :blush:

      • Ounce of weed????? Seriously??? Orgasm is good…..and why would you blush at that..a high five is appropriate…..

        Given the context of the text before I am reading it as OHH? To mean, “really”? perhaps a slight I am surprised…but thanks everyone.

        Special Note to Anita…..I will stick with your definition last…….the blushing one. A vicarious mental picture,if you will.

    • Canine Weapon says:

      Just “O”? Any context?

      I’d probably read it ah “oh,” but it could depend a lot on the situation and the individual.

      But then again, I’m a dog.

  30. Canine Weapon says:

    Colonel,

    This one’s for you!

    http://imgur.com/gallery/ltVVQ

    Well, really, it’s for everyone, but especially you.

  31. This one is for all of you!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Charlie

        I suggest you read the comments on the video. Pretty much capture the ongoing HOLLOW attacks by folks like Hitchens.

      • Somehow I don’t particularly think Rand and Reagan have much in common (to those who really study politics) other than the fact their last names start with the same letter. I loved Hitchens, loved listening to him use the language. Sometimes I agreed with him, sometimes I disagreed. He was very different after 9-11-01.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          SK

          In case you did not know, Rand was initially very optimistic about Reagan. That was based on his stated views and rhetoric.

          By the time he was elected she had become upset over his accepting the partnership with the “Christian Coalition”.

          Not long after he was in office she expressed disappointment that Reagan turned out to be just another “conservative” version of the Progressive/Fascist school.

          I believe that Reagan was a great President if you use National well being as your only criteria. There is no doubt that the national mood changed in large part due to his leadership and character.

          At the same time a great disappointment if you use adherence to founding principles or freedom/liberty/justice as your criteria.

          His rhetoric about small govt did not match up with his record, once in office.

          • It would be fun to live long enough to read the unbiased history books written by historians now attending Junior High. Personally, I tend to agree with you, both the EPA and the Dept. of Education survived the Reagan years. The Soviet Union did not. I really, in my heart of hearts believe that this was priority # 1 for the Gipper. He hoped and prayed that after the collapse, the country would swing away from its flirtations with Socialism.

            His biggest mistake in my opinion, Bush the elder, certainly in the second term. Second term should have been someone like Jack Kemp. Reagan however was a loyal man, perhaps to a fault. We can look back now and see just what a Charlie Foxtrot Bush was as a choice. He begat Clinton, Bush 2 and the current satanic imbecile. A direct line of progressively worse smelling turds mind you.

            If you had only one reason to reject Bush as VP it should have been him using the phrase “voodoo economics” in the campaign for the nomination. SOB never took it back either. We are, to this day, stuck with that sucker hung around our necks like a dead albatross. .

            • Shame on you Stephen…….Obama has hijacked the “voodoo economics”…….what is happening now does not even compare to the past. What is happening now, could write the forward and the epilogue……

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Colonel

                You CANNOT use the term Voodoo when referring to Dear Leader Obama.

                That is Soooooooooooooo RACIST, don’t ya know!

              • Beloved leader and his henchmen continue to use the term to deride Reagan and every other Republican and Conservative who believes in hands off government. . As I said, I do not ever remember Bush I taking it back. Maybe I missed something somewhere but he started it and it has become part of the left’s lexicon. Matters not that it was proved successful here and abroad, merely that you can sling it around much like the term “racist”. This new controversy over the “resignation” of the Mozilla CEO is a fascist move akin to the Nazi’s . It would behoove us if we started using the term. They are really starting to earn it on the other side. Them boys (and girls) be feeling their oats these days pardner.

    • We spent the Soviet Union into the ground. Deficits, did I hear someone say deficits? What the holy hell has been going on for the past five years plus?

  32. Just A Citizen says:

    Inquiring minds want to know:

    How could these even happen at the White House event?

    http://t.foxsports.msn.com/white-house-not-happy-about-big-papis-selfie-with-obama

    When visiting there several years ago, ALL packs, containers and CELL PHONES had to be deposited at security check points and could not be picked up until LEAVING.

    So how is it that a ball player was not subjected to the same security requirements as the general public??

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    I wonder if Costas counts the outcome of “hunting” as a positive outcome with guns?

    If not then his challenge is just another left wing trick to make himself appear reasonable while stacking the deck.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2014/04/03/Bob-Costas-Bets-Athletes-Can-t-Be-Trusted-With-Guns

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Ah yes, another example of the “Arrogance of Power” that is held by “Govt”.

    http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/new-revelations-about-mom-killed-by-capitol-cops/

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    Back on the topic of legalized drugs. Remember my cynical comment about medicating Society?

    Well why on earth would George Soros and other UberRich plutocrats give a damn about legalizing POT, let alone spend millions on making it happen??

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/2/billionaire-george-soros-turns-cash-into-legalized/

    Oh, little bit of interesting information contained within this article.

    Soros’ foundation has 3.5 BILLION dollars available for Global political action/contributions, etc. Funny how Harry Reid NEVER mentions Soros. Yet he rants against the Koch bro’s who have only $308 million in their “foundation” for similar activities.

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Good description of the pitfalls of using mob action to affect Govt change.

    Interesting site as well. Not in agreement with one basic premise but still very interesting.

    http://www.americaagainnow.com/broken_spring

    • Hmmm. That was interesting, wish I wasn’t rushed for time right now-was disappointed I couldn’t read the article which was supposed to tell us exactly how we were to change things.

      Am curious which basic premise you disagreed with-I personally find holding rallies to highlight ones view and having people on the radio and in other media a necessary tool to speak to the people-a good idea-though there is a difference between holding a rally and trying to overthrow the government.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I disagree with the claim that the Constitution mandates or demands a “Citizens Militia”.

        It recognized the existence and importance of the Militia. But it does nothing to place a demand on its existence other than that it be regulated and equipped properly and it gives Congress the authority to do so.

  37. “what every you say.”

    I think you were shooting for “whatever you say” … no charge.

  38. Just A Citizen says:
  39. In other words-don’t think for yourself, ignore your own mind and moral code -just letus assure you that everything is —-OKAY!

    And I really have to wonder-what would the E-card say.

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/04/group-declares-april-abortion-wellbeing-month/

    • And this little statement-What does that last line even mean?

      “Each of us is more than just one person with our own thoughts and feelings — we are members of our families and communities.”

      “We’re in relationships. We experience nature. We share faith and spiritual beliefs. And abortion, while an event that happens in our body, is connected to so much more of who we are and what we believe in the world,” she added.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        Sounds like BABBLING to me. A subtle form of Psycho Babbling to be precise.

        Or as Limbaugh said about the Mozilla press release about their exiting CEO, due to his Gay Marriage opposition…………..”It is pure Orwellian rhetoric”.

        • It seems like so much more than just psycho babbling-they’re telling people to ignore their own consciences, their own sense of right and wrong-to ignore that which makes us humans-the abilities that make us different from the animals-because the community can think for them!

          • Just A Citizen says:

            V.H.

            I share your assessment although the purpose of babble is to hide the real argument. That is if there really is one. On the other hand it could just be a bunch of “empty rationalizing” to support the pre-determined position. Notice how the “intent’ is NOT CLEAR. This allows them to deny it when you challenge their argument.

            I would only add that it seems to borrow the concept of “community” as an actual “biological identity” as part of the defense. Our mental health is just part of the WHOLE organism’s health. But notice there is ZERO explanation why or how abortion contributes to the Health of the WHOLE.

            That is what I mean by “psycho babble”. A mush of ill defined and non descript “thoughts”, “ideas” and “emotions” all mixed up to justify some view. In other words, the babbling is the outcome of a scrambled “psychology” and lack of “rational thought”.

            If that term does not fit then the “Orwellian” term certainly fits.

            • Yes, these words “I would only add that it seems to borrow the concept of “community” as an actual “biological identity” as part of the defense. Our mental health is just part of
              the WHOLE organism’s health. But notice there is ZERO explanation why or how abortion contributes to the Health of the WHOLE.” -That helps put my objections in focus.

              I found myself thinking -“Take one for the home team”- when I read the article.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                I like your last summation about taking one for the team.

                Yep, you should celebrate your own “wellness” because your abortion was to the benefit of the WHOLE.

                I think the BORG is a metaphor for the progressive view of their utopian Society.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                V.H.

                Way to funny and speak of irony. Re: Taking One for the Team.

                The Danes have a different view of the matter. Wonder if they will ever realize the “pro abortion” crowd is working against their goal.

                http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/do-it-for-denmark_n_5050597.html?cps=gravity

                Single Men of SUFA, it is time to do your duty for the Global Community. Buy your ticket to Denmark and do what you can to help them out with their “demographic” concerns. Where are those GI’s when you need them?

        • Speaking of the exit of Mozilla’s chief exec. The following is an explanation of what happened????!!!!???? from the Chairwoman.

          https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/03/brendan-eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-ceo/

          in my life, except perhaps in Orwell’s “1984” I have never read such drivel as Charlie calls it. If I got it right, they had to lose the guy to properly serve free speech but acknowledge pretty much that he was ousted for using free speech. The fascists have won!

  40. Another attempt to get “some” of you to read/watch something other than you’re own drivel (to borrow a word). http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2014/04/books-movies-book-of-essays-by-leslie.html

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    I need to share something I experienced recently. It is new to me so you techies can keep your “dinosaur” comments to yourselves, please!

    I had to sign up for a UPS account in order to request a different delivery date. After filling out all the “personal information” required by most website “accounts” I got the following series of pages.

    “We need to confirm who you are”

    Next up was a page with a question and multiple choice selections.

    “Which if any of the following places did you spend time with JOHN SMITH, recently?”

    a. X, b. Y, c. Z, d None of the above.

    Hair goes up on the back of my neck because “John Smith” was one of my best friends. But none of the towns were applicable. So I checked “d”.

    Next up: “Sorry we cannot confirm your identity” It then bounced me back to the part where the questions started.

    After some thought I clicked on that page to “continue” again and I got a NEW QUESTION.

    “Which if any of the following people have you spent time with in the past year?”

    a. X, b. Y, c. Z, d. None of the above.

    Major creepy feeling now, one of the three was another friend. But not wanting to give up my friends I selected “d” once again.

    Kicked back to mid point and then clicked “continue” once again. NEW QUESTION.

    “Which of the following locations, if any, have you lived in the past few years?”

    a. X, b. Y, c. Z, d. None of the above.

    Now I am feeling sick and shaking with anger. TWO of the three fit the question.

    I give in and select one of the answers that fits. The “oldest” of the choices and one I knew was on the internet already, via a secondary connection to another person.

    “We have identified you, you may now proceed”.

    Click “continue”.

    Next up? Request for credit card information to pay for the request to deliver my package when I might actually be home.

    I EXITED the site and decided to just stay home the day they were going to deliver the package.

    My email later informed me that I had “Successfully Opened a UPS Account”. Yes, I had “enrolled” despite exiting the sign up process.

    Now this is the UPS, as in United Parcel Service not the USPS. Why would they be employing such sophisticated software in their application process? Who the hell is collecting and sorting through all this data to create these “interactive” questions?

    Once you answer them WHO else gets all this information along with the CONFIRMED connections to lord knows what and whom else?

    Spousal Unit Leader and I spent about 30 minutes last night discussing this and trying to figure out how to get OFF THE MATRIX. We concluded it is to late to get off. The best we can do is “minimize” the additional damage. We will do this by NOT participating in any commercial or Govt sites that run similar programs or request information that is obviously not needed. In fact, we may not sign up for any “new” services via the web.

    Now back to your regular programming and do NOT WORRY. We are NOT WATCHING YOU! Bwahahhahahaaa

    • Scary, isnt it……….have you tried to go through the Obamacare process yet? Even more scary. I went partway through it just to see how long, and what was asked…..etc. I exited the program without sending any data in like credit cards etc. They wanted my parents name and address, maiden name, if any, how many in household on private insurance and with whom…how many children living with you..not living with you…if not living with you what are their addresses, phone numbers, email, twitter, etc. Name of current physician, medications, income, ssn,, passport number……..and a variety of other things……

      Anyway, I exited the program without signing up and without divulging any financial information…..Within 24 hours, I received a notice that said ” thank you for signing up in x y z program.” Before you can begin coverage we need you financial information. Please do not delay.

      Interesting…………………I DID NOT sign up but it said that I did and it gave me an identification number and password to go to “my account”. So, if I am one of the 7 million that “signed up”……………no wonder the numbers are bogus.

  42. Dale A. Albrecht says:

    Just wanted to let D13 know that NPR east has been running a beat up on Texas “news” programs for a couple weeks now. Every day there is a new expose on some defective program in Texas, generally ones that are in opposition to the “FED” programs like gun control, immigration, reproductive rights, voter id…this list goes on. Glad you folks down there wear big hats and tall boots to protect yourself from the S..T flying your way.

  43. The amount of money in one man’s wallet has no effect on the next man? Really? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/opinion/surprise-the-rich-won-one.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0

    • Ya see, in the second paragraph, she is at the pubic hair thing. Read no further! Rotted fish ahead wrapped in soiled diapers. The left cannot engage in intelligent discourse. .

      • Just A Citizen says:

        They first have to UNDERSTAND the issue rather than just bark back like the trained dogs they have become.

        Pavlov would be so proud of this bunch.

        And like the PACK they are, one barks and the other all repeat it, howling at the moon.

  44. Test

    ⭐ 🐻 🙄 :o_O:

  45. Just A Citizen says:

    So, did this judge just declare that our operations in Iraq and Afghanistand and elsewhere are in fact WAR??

    If so does that not mean that the Geneva Conventions are in FULL FORCE?

    So those POW’s in Cuba can remain in prison until said WAR is declared over!!

    And of course, US Govt officials can be brought up on charges for violating US Laws regarding treatment of POW’s, if they can prove such violations.

    Now on a related note. Anyone wonder why the Democratic controlled Senate committee and body is deciding to release the reports on Torture??

    I know that many of the R’s voted to release it. But it is the Dems who are leading the charge on this.

    WHY??? And WHY NOW??? This is not NEW information.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      T-Ray

      The Dems are in the tank and so are many Republicans. Which means, not very soon.

      Now SUFA, remember when I told ya’ll this was the plan??

      Air and Water……………provide access to TOTAL CONTROL.

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Now lets just imagine what the Progressives might do if they could IDENTIFY all those who are or “might become” Conservatives when the grow up.

    Let me suggest the new Captain America movie as once possible scenario. The TV show, “Person of Interest” is another example.

    • Just A Citizen says:
      • Did I just read that we are all ruled by biology. I guess that means that people can either be dismissed or is it another take on criminals shouldn’t be punished because they aren’t really responsible for their actions.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          V.H.

          There seems to be a concerted effort among the academic elite to prove that we are simply slaves to our genetic makeup. Nothing but animals.

          Why?

          Well if that is true it destroys the philosophical arguments for Reason and Logic. Not necessary, just go with your “instincts” because you have no choice anyway.

          Note the linkage of homosexual behavior with genetics dictating that you are homosexual, as just one example. The arguments fail to recognize the difference between desires that can be driven by biology and the actual choices we make.

          So my urge to rip the had of Pelosi, Reid and their cousins should be respected. I have no choice.

          Which also leads us down the path of those with the “CORRECT” genetic “DISPOSITION” convincing the fearful mobs that they can save them from the Berserkers like myself. Because they can “identify” me and have me removed.

          By the way, you may recall arguments made to this affect by Chris Devine way back in the early SUFA days as well as Todd. I wonder if they realize the full implication of accepting these theories.

          • It also seems to be saying-that the individual shouldn’t be listened to because they are too controlled by “instinct” Which opens the door to all that the community knows best BS-and since they are interpreting conservative’s looking longer at the negative -as them basically over-reacting and seeing evil everywhere-we all know which group think should be listened too.

            I find the research interesting but I really question their conclusions. Why is looking at the negative longer a bad thing-maybe the people who avoid the bad-are the ones who have a problem-such as refusing to acknowledge reality.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              V.H.

              I read the book and conclusions of the person referenced in the article. The author of the article, or the person quoted in that article, MISTATES the conclusions. I think that happens a lot with this type of research.

              In fact his book concludes with the idea that “liberals” are driven primarily by ONE single means of thinking. That is EMOTION. He describes 5 to 7 thought groups based on human values, like equality, justice, fairness, etc, etc. His research shows that liberals and conservative have DIFFERENT views of what these values mean. And the “liberal” uses the emotional/empathy end of the scale. Conservatives score HIGHER in all other areas.

              So if one is honest in describing this research they would point out this LACK OF DIVERSITY among the “liberals”. Which plays into the question again, WHY do they focus on this stuff so much? I think we agree it is partly to help them rationalize all kinds of bad things. And using it to denigrate and ridicule their “enemy” is certainly one of those motivations.

              The notion of conservatives focusing on “negative” is actually a focus on “danger”. Because “conservatives” also test out as HAPPIER in most cases I have seen.

              A focus on “danger” fits other conclusions regarding “conservative” thinking and mind sets. Namely a greater propensity to use REASON and LOGIC and an ability to grasp REALITY in the world around us. So how would this have worked out in human history???

              The conservative would have accurately identified the “threat” posed by the lions circling the camp and taken the needed action to prevent harm to the people in the camp. The liberal would have walked out to meet the lion, believing that by looking into the lion’s eyes they could become “brothers”.

              If not for our specialization which allowed us to protect the weaker the “left wing” among us would be very rare. They would have all been living among the lions instead of with us.

              • I just have to wonder Why they always conclude that these correlations are based on biology instead of personal experiences.

  47. Just A Citizen says:

    I was going to say this last week, thought maybe not, and have now changed my mind.

    Hall of Fame QB Jim Kelly is almost certainly among the “walking dead”. It saddens me greatly but I fear he will be gone soon enough.

    Charlie and his Bill’s friends should throw a party in his memory, ASAP. Before the true sadness takes over.

  48. gmanfortruth says:
  49. Will post something new by Monday. Intend to select a topic & hope most will throw something in with it or at it.

  50. gmanfortruth says:
  51. Just A Citizen says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you one more great example of Orwellian speak from the Progressive front. These people have become absolute masters at manipulating the language and their message.

    Also the first real evidence I have seen that the Witch from ArKansas is seriously considering a run for POTUS. This is how they start. This is how Obama started. Grand fluffy speeches about how THEY understand that “ideology” and “partisanship” is harming the country.

    Which of course is the highest example of HYPOCRICY as well!

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-03-22-31-05

    • If she is so concerned about partisanship, then admit the superiority of the conservative approach, retire and go home. Problem solved. 🙂

  52. Just A Citizen says:

    plainly

    What has you laid up in the Hospital? Hope all is well.

    Remember, the Constitution deals with the taking of “rights” IF convicted of crimes and if such convictions are reached under “DUE PROCESS”.

    So I think GMans absolute on the “bearing” of arms has a “caveat” built in.

    • plainlyspoken says:

      I have pancreatitis and gallstones. I am on day 3 here and with pancreatitis one gets no food or liquids orally, so I get nothing more than an IV to keep me hydrated. Once my pancreas settles down, then I will be having my gallbladder removed.

      I get pain meds though and with pancreatitis I want those. Unfortunately there has been a setback and the problem has gotten worse since yesterday, which sets back any possible release for 3 or 4 days.

      It sucks, but – for the moment – I should live. Apparently pancreatitis can kill you though, so I am stuck here till all is well. The worse part is today is my anniversary and I can’t even offer my wife a romantic clear-liquid anniversary dinner on the hospital bed tray! 😦

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Get well my friend. I hope all turns out OK. Me thinks your wife will understand, although I know it is still frustrating.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Get well soon Sir. I can understand the meds issue, I’m still healing from foot surgery. As far as guns,I have stated in the past that those who are “violent” felons and those who are mentally ill should not have guns.

        • oneoutragedparent says:

          I am glad you agree that the 2nd Amendment CAN be limited then – so I don’t expect so many more blanket (and inaccurate) statements to the contrary. 🙂

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Going back to the permitting discussion, I have always said that violent felons and nutcases should not have the same rights as law abiding, sane citizens. But I don’t stop at the 2nd Amendment either. I don’t believe that non-violent felons should lose those rights though, as is the current case. As far as the violent felons and nutcases, no guns, no motorized vehicles, no knives, etc. But I’m not silly enough to think that violent felons and nut cases are going to follow the law, so guns for the rest of us, anywhere we chose. 😀

            • gmanfortruth says:

              And no stupid permits. Background checks are mostly useless too, but have been somewhat effective on a very small scale.

        • oneoutragedparent says:

          Thanks for the well wishes. 🙂

      • Pancreatitis must really hurt because you practically ignored the gall stones and I know they hurt. Hope you get better real fast!

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Wishing you a speedy recovery Plainly. You’ll be in my thoughts & prayers.

      • Best!

  53. Just A Citizen says:

    Mark Cuban is becoming one of my favorite people. Don’t agree on everything but at least he takes the time to think. Now he is sharing with the rest of us.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-cuban/high-frequency-trading_b_5086685.html

    I urge ya’ll to read many of the comments. They reflect the knee jerk and standard reactions that we have been TRAINED to utter every time we identify a problem.

  54. Hey Murphy asked a question -does anybody have an answer? All I know how to do is copy and paste 🙂

    Murphy’s Law says:
    April 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm

    Gman, or anyone else who knows…how do you post a picture or cartoon here? I can’t figure it out….

    Murf

  55. Just A Citizen says:

    Yet more Orwellian crappola from a left wing writer.

    http://t.money.msn.com/tax-planning/10-tax-breaks-for-the-rich

  56. I was watching a news report today from CNN…..they were interviewing a Colorado Sheriff from Boulder and a Federal agent ( I did not get which department ) about the legalization of marijuana and the direct effects of it on Colorado. According to them, traffic accidents have increased directly tied to marijuana and the violence on the streets is growing as cartel members that have flooded Colorado are setting up a very violent black market and undercutting the state distribution centers. Also, they were saying that the black market profiteers are threatening and actually beating patrons who go to distribution centers. What was also pointed out, that I did not know, was that in states like New York that have taxed cigarettes and liquor to the extremes have created a multi-million black market that is becoming so profitable that out of country cartels are moving in in large numbers now.

    So, if legalization is so great, why is it so profitable to the cartels and black market. They said that States that legalize it and create excessive taxes as a form of revenue are inviting the black market and the under ground violence that goes with it. I will say that Texas is watching Colorado very closely and I have already heard complaints from friends in the skiing crowd that they are not going back because there is apparently no restriction on where you can smoke it and they do not want their children around second hand smoke. In places like Aspen, Colorado and Vail they said are especially bad.

    Our legislators are already talking about keeping marijuana illegal so they do not create an additional crime area in the black market. They point to cigarettes and liquor taxes that are kept low enough that the black market is not profitable in this area;

    Discussion? Keep it civil please.

    • Illegal still rewards the criminal growth & distribution. So only criminals can profit. It is a artificial market created by government forbidding the use of a plant that grows naturally in many places. The only solution I see is to make it legal without imposing a tax. The downside is DUI & medical. That has to be addressed when & where it’s a problem. DUI’s from alcohol have dropped over the years, no reason to think the same tactics won’t work with pot.

      My big issue is paying someone on welfare/medicaid to get high while I work.

      • I agree that illegal still rewards criminal growth and distribution but the amount of that growth and distribution is apparently much less because it cannot be masked or laundered with the legal side. There is no mistake.

        However if legalization is done as a form of income…..then you are exacerbating the problem as I see it. But what the hell, I do not smoke, nor drink (grog excepted during Pirate Day on Thor’s Hammer), nor do drugs…so what do I know.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        LOI, agree totally on the welfare issue. Those on welfare should not have cigarettes, alcohol or legal drugs. I would even limit what they can purchase when it comes to cable TV and several other niceties.

        Like the Colonel, I don’t use the stuff, so I could care less what others do. 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Good Morning Colonel, I’m not believing much of what is on the news lately on the subject, mainly because pot has been available in every state for many decades. Basically the pundit’s are saying that somehow , because it’s legal, all these issues suddenly come with it. I call Bulldookie on that.

      As far as cartel activity, or just simple violence by low level barbarians because they are losing their income flow, is a job that the police need to start fixing. They are complaining about the very thing that they have failed in doing for decades, take the illegal drug dealers off the street. At the same time, people need to be responsible for their own safety. Don’t want to get your ass kicked by a barbarian thug because you bought pot legally, carry a gun or at least a good stun gun or pepper spray. Learn how to hit these people and put them down, no matter the size, with one solid shot. It’s not that hard and it’s all over the internet.

      The taxes are likely to keep the black market open, which will lower prices and at some point, should put most, but not all, of the black market business out of business. There will always be a black market, for everything, including normal services like carpentry, painting, plumbing and electrical work. Taxes will always result in a black market.

      I don’t really care about pot or other drugs being legalized and controlled. Certain drugs could be added to those drugs that are currently very addictive that would all but eliminate the addiction part. Potency can also be regulated. Both would go a long way to lowering the use of all drugs. But, the government won’t do that because there’s too much money being made by keeping it illegal. Plus, the government needs a dumbed down populace to be able to continue their daily theft.

      Hope today finds you and yours happy and healthy 😀

      • YOu said “The taxes are likely to keep the black market open, which will lower prices and at some point, should put most, but not all, of the black market business out of business.”

        I disagree with this line of thought. I disagree that a plumber that “moonlights” is a form of black market. History is showing that the sin taxes, as they are commonly called, are always being increased for revenue….not decreasing and, consequently, the black market increase.

        I also disagree with you that the black market is run by low level barbarians….this is not true. The low level barbarians have been replaced by high tech saavy barbarians with automatic weapons, aircraft, and submarines.

        Alcohol as a great example….it is legal…it has changed nothing by being legal except eliminated Al Capone…..taxing it excessively is bringing the more sophisticated criminal element in because it is now worth the risk. I think I will do a little research on legalization and taxes vs criminal element.

        I still think that Texas has it right or at least partially correct. Marijuana is still around and people can still get it. That will never stop…..ever. I understand this. But it is a risk….and a risk associated with law enforcement that is being enforced here.

        I don’t know the answer but I still agree with the Texas approach for now.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          “run by low level barbarians”, Agreed, I was thinking of the thugs in the inner cities selling on the street corner, I should have been clearer 🙂

          Moonlighting: I actually worked under the table for several years painting for people. I know more “moonlighters” than the phonebook has legal business’s, and all are doing well for themselves. I consider selling any product or performing any service “under the table” as a form a the black market because it’s done without taxes and government permits involved. That’s just my humble opinion though and that won’t even get me a cup of good coffee 😀

          Alcohol. Yes, still a black market (think apple pie moonshine). A quart sells for as much as 15 bucks at some places (I know from experience). I can sell my homemade brandy for 8 bucks a fifth and make a small fortune, I don’t, but just sayin 🙂

          I’m on the side of the fence that if one’s actions do not affect anyone else, the government should be out of peoples business. As soon as one harms another, there should be penalties to pay. THat’s how I see that stuff.

          Your an old schooler Colonel! I have no problems with your beliefs and feelings, just like my Pops in so many ways 😀

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Colonel, It costs me 20 bucks to make 2 1/2 gallons of Apple Pie Moonshine. I don’t sell it, but I do stock it for bartering purposes (plus some fun when company comes for a few days).
            I use the 190 proof grain alcohol. Good stuff and there is a huge market for it.

      • I agree GMan. I find it hard to believe that pot becoming legal has created new users overnight, or that suddenly potheads suddenly created problems overnight. I need to see some detailed proof before I believe it.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          We all know how the pundits want to use fear to forward their agenda. Just like Illinios and their gun laws that have recently changed was supposed to cause wild west shootouts, instead, Chicago gets these results: http://www.prisonplanet.com/185410.html

          Gun advocates credit new concealed carry laws for sharp drop in Chicago murder rate

        • Anita, for what it is worth……..take it from an old Colonel that knows and understands the order and the cartels. I can promise you, in Colorado, things will get worse. At any rate, there is no arguing that drugs of all types have been around long and plenty of people are on them….however, it is not the number of people that are on it…it is what it will bring. G man was correct in how things were years ago…..low level thugs and local druggies….things are not that way now. However, we shall see. That Sheriff in Boulder was pretty emphatic that traffic issues have been increasing since the legalization.

    • Sedgewick says:

      I agree with Gman’s assessment.

      Whoever is putting out those reports, I suspect is full of it and does not understand economics or the drug culture.

      Marijuana has been around for a long time, and is easy to find almost anywhere in the USA, …among other places. And the price is comparable to alcohol or cigarettes, even crack cocaine and meth.

      The only reason there is money to be made from it is because of regulation and criminalization. Criminalization imposes risk, causes a need to circumvent, and thus a larger investment to produce and sell it. If the law treated it similar to tomatoes, the price would drop significantly.

      Everything economic, starts with demand, thus it should be viewed from the perspective of a smoker.

      If you smoke and live where it is illegal, you have a choice between assuming the risk, price and maintenance of growing it, or running a low-profile errand on occasion. The latter option costs more, but is lower risk and convenient.

      If it is legalized and taxed, you now have a third option of running an errand that you need not worry about being low-profile, but you will pay more in the form of taxation.

      If it is completely decriminalized and treated similar to tomatoes, you can now grow it on your patio or run an errand.

      The legal market cannot compete with black market prices. The law obviously cannot force the black market out of existence. At best, the legal market can compete via convenience. It essentially boils down to whether the average smoker wants to run to the local ‘store’ now, or make a phone call to a dealer and get it a little cheaper an hour from now. All the dealers have to do to compete is to deliver it for $5 more… which will cause legal dealers to do the same.

      Eventually, it will revert back to price competition, …which the legal market will lose. Dealers and cartels should or do know this.

      • One point that needs to be added is the age element of this discussion-one can sell tomatoes to any age group but we don’t sell, cigarettes, alcohol, or now pot to children-so it isn’t just the tax issue/cost that is a problem.

        • Sedgewick says:

          Of course. …I was only speaking more toward the economic aspects.

          I would also argue that age restrictions are about as ineffective as any others. As it is, has been, and most likely will be, anyone who wants drugs and alcohol can do so regardless of said restrictions.

          I understand you are about being responsible with it, which I very much agree with. I think the answer is to treat it similar to alcohol by promoting safe use.

          The average 16 yr old is intelligent independent and aware enough to make the decision to smoke or drink and manipulate circumstances in order to obtain it, and is thus capable of understanding how to be responsible with it. If they can prepare for college or operate a car or plane at that age, managing smoking pot at their friend’s house on Saturday night is not a complex thing for them.

          You may be able to limit availability to teens, but you are not going to stop it. The best you can do is appeal to their sense of responsibility, which they may actually have by that age.

          My first day in Spain, my coworkers and I decided to get a bite to eat and a couple of beers at one of the local deli/pubs. Three teenagers stopped by after school to do the same. They hung out, ate, drank a beer or two, then left to presumably walk home. …No big deal.

          Spain apparently doesn’t worry too much about it. It isn’t taboo or mischievous to them. I think there is something to that. Because the general attitude is a bit relaxed, it devalues the temptation and element of mischief, or need to over-do ‘fun’.

          Put a small child at a table with a coloring book or something. Somewhere in the room, place a box with a toy in it. Tell the child that you are going out of the room for a few minutes, and not to look inside the box.

          As soon as you say that, you create intrigue, a drive to look inside the box. The child thinks… ” With all these other things going on, and all this other stuff in the room, there is something special about whatever is in that box.” Given adequate opportunity to ‘get away with it’, most children will look inside the box.

          Do the same thing with another child/children, only say nothing about the box. Pay it no attention as just another random item in the room. The child will likely ignore the box.

          • Sedgewick says:

            To add…

            While I was a young teen in school, they had a drug education course/program.

            They spent time giving a scientific explanation on drugs and alcohol,effects, addiction, …as well as had a few former drug addicts as guest speakers.

            One thing they made clear was that they were not there to tell us not to do drugs and alcohol, but rather to share their experiences and subsequent wisdom.

            This was a subtle and clever way of guiding the process of thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis, while satisfying the element of intrigue and recognizing free will.

            It was a clear message ” Wanna know about drugs/alcohol? Okay, we’ll tell you ALL ABOUT it. Now you are armed with knowledge and shared wisdom to make the obvious choice to not get wrapped up into drugs. ”

            It is my opinion that such programs do more to prevent issues with drugs than strict prohibition.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      One of the comments to this article summarizes the issue perfectly. And it should point Texas in the right direction. NO tax and your underground criminal element will disappear.

      “The Colorado legislature, in its infinite wisdom, seized the opportunity to stuff a massive 35% tax on pot sales. What in the world did these self-serving, low-information economic clowns expect to happen? People will seek the lowest cost, particularly when an artificial barrier like a confiscatory tax is created. If no legal alternative is available, the marketplace will create a Black Market, whether it’s pot in Colorado or toilet paper in Venezuela.

      It was naive for the Colorado legislature to assume people would voluntarily pay a 35% excise tax without seeking an alternative. Of course, now that it’s called “tax revenue”, politicians start referring to it as “our money” and demanding that “something be done” to stop this “lawlessness”. This happens any time there is an artificial constraint placed on the market price. It has very little to do with pot. It’s human nature, and there’s nothing they can do about it. The same thing would happen if they placed a 35% tax on Coca Cola. Within a week, “Coke smuggling” would take on an entirely new meaning, as soon as somebody figures they can make a killing by driving in a trailer load. Did we learn nothing from our experimentation with Prohibition?

      Economics. It’s not just a good idea. It’s the law.”

      • THanks JAC…..much more profound than I could make it. I assumed that people would see the economics in my post. They did not.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13

          Your welcome. As I offered the other day, I think any uptick in violence over legalizing pot will be temporary. That is if the States do not OVER TAX it like they have in Colorado.

          People forget that Bootlegging and Black Markets are responses to OVER TAXATION.

  57. I just learned that Dearborn, Mi is 30% muslim? I found this out when they, the muslim community, is upset at an Egg hunt. Not an EASTER egg hunt…..just an egg hunt with no religious connotation at all. They claim that egg hunts are commonly known as Easter Egg Hunts and, therefore, are a violation of the Constitution. They said that it does not matter that a flyer sent to school inviting all those that wish to participate in an “Eggstravaganza” held on the grounds of a Presbytarian Church….no where was there a mention of Easter or Christ or anything…..just an egg hunt. In other words, a community function. Not unlike the same community function when the local Mosque opened its grounds during Ramadan….when the schools gave days off for Ramadan. Interestingly enough, the muslim community does not see it the same. So, if a function at a Christian church is considered a violation of the Constitution, then a function at a muslim mosque is that same violation.
    So, there is now a move in Dearborn, Michigan that wants to eliminate all community functions at all church grounds and not send flyers or publish advertisements in newspapers. Hence, there is a movement from the other side to do away with Ramadan just as the muslims want to do away with Christmas and Easter……..sigh……

    Political correctness run amok, yet again. And please, no references to separation of church and state to the First Amendment…..everyone knows what the first amendment says and its intent and it is not the above.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      If the Muslim’s don’t like our customs, religious or otherwise, they are free to go back to their backassward countries that they left. This can be also said of the LBGT movement and all their BS too, except they can go back in their dark closets. If they want accepted, they all need to learn that it’s a two way street 😦

    • 30% ? That surprises me. By eyesight, I’d have said 60% Makes me wonder how many are legal. The idea of doing away with Ramadan, good idea! Not that I think it’s right either, just that hopefully it will open some eyes.

      Side note on Muslims in Dearborn. I worked closely with a Muslim for 5 years. Great guy. Ran for mayor of Dearborn, while still showing up for work every day. He won and kept the city safe and thriving for 20 years, running unopposed during one cycle. Poor guy died of cancer while still serving. RIP Mike Guido.

    • I’m sorry-I have too-an Easter hunt is a religious event when it is happening at a Church-Just as any celebrations at a mosque during Ramadan is a religious celebration. People can certainly go there just to have fun without any personal religious feelings necessary. We need to stop trying to make religious events secular, all welcoming, yes -but not just events-when they are not- just so they will not go against the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state was not meant to stop these types of events or to separate the religious from government. By trying to make the religious celebrations just a community event-we are agreeing with these twisted definition of the first amendment that the secularist are trying to force on us.

      • I shouldn’t have used the word secularist-I am a christian and a secularist-I do not want or believe in forming a theocracy.

        • I’ve gotta stop falling into that trap of letting the liberals control the language. 🙂

      • Can’t go with you on that VH…….is a soft ball game on a church field a religious event? I think not. If a group of high school cheerleaders do a car wash fund raiser in a church parking lot make it a religious event? If you think so, isn’t that pretty narrow thinking? Church’s rent out buildings all the time……for non religious events. I do not feel location decides. Or…..am I wrong?

      • VH

        I can see that line of thinking. I think it can be argued either way. But what is to stop them from having an egg hunt at the Mosque? They could compete with the Christians on having the biggest event. Sad thing is it could end with even more people forgetting the meaning of Easter, that Christ died for us on that day. If the Muslims were smart about it, they would amp up every Santa Clause & bunny event to diminish the Christian message.

    • Sedgewick says:

      The first amendment is premised on the idea of having a mind of your own, recognition of individual choice. It is to say that you can come to the USA and think and be what you wish, to exercise and express yourself without interference from government, and instead be protected by government. The whole idea of the separation of church and state, the very origins of the tradition of religious freedom in the US started with Christian pilgrims at Plymouth.

      Since that time, Americans have strayed so far off the mark that the original intent has been lost. So many want to skew and manipulate the interpretation and traditions to do exactly opposite.

      This is just another example thereof.

      You are free to think, believe, express, celebrate, and practice your religion, up to the point where you are violating, dominating, or harassing others, or are otherwise impeding their ability to practice their faith.

      Having an EASTER Egg hunt in the name of Jesus on Church property is perfectly acceptable and should not offend. Inviting people to your EASTER egg hunt is not violating or harassing anyone.

      If the school had an Easter celebration that pushed Christianity, or a celebration without consideration to other faiths, or denied other faiths, then it would be a legitimate argument. You could argue that it is a state facility favoring a particular faith. But it was simply invitations. I think it is a good example of when to exhibit tolerance. I also wonder why they were not sent by other means. Why a public school? Why not bulk mail or newspaper advertisement?

      What gets me is that it is even an issue. Why must religion be a competitive thing?

      Why do these people of different faiths, who live side by side in the same community, who’s children go to the same schools, who are growing up together and may end up marrying one day, have to argue about it and/or be pushy? Why not get over the hangup of differences, and put their resources together to do something like send their kids on a field trip to the Smithsonian ..or whatever else mutually beneficial?

      • It seems they don’t-per the updated article attached-it’s usually one jerk or a group of jerks who don’t even come from the community.

        D13-that would be narrow thinking-I didn’t mean to imply that location decides -I think non religious events can happen at churches and religious events can happen in the public square and both should be allowed and are allowed by our Constitution. Having an Easter egg hunt at the White House or having an environmental Earth Day celebration are no different in my mind. Unless the purpose is to alienate our religious citizens and make them second class citizens.

        http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/07/america-the-beautiful-muslims-presbyterians-amicably-resolve-easter-egg-crisis/

  58. Just A Citizen says:

    Some very interesting stuff on unemployment and our economy. Unfortunately, the author reaches the same “general” conclusions as most. We just need the “correct policies”. When will they ever learn?

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304441304579477341062142388?mod=WSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304441304579477341062142388.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hppMIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

    • Nope…..want to end unemployment? Stop U/E payments….all these jobs in the newspapers will fill up quickly and immigration from the south will be non existent.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        d13thecolonel

        Just finished by Fed Taxes. Spent hours yesterday trying to translate the NEW Instructions for calculating the ADDITIONAL Investment Tax passed under OCare. I told Spousal Unit Leader that I was going to rip the head off any Democrat I come in contact with from this day forward.

        She asked me why I had lost my temper over a lousy tax booklet. I handed it to her and showed her just ONE paragraph. It explains the rules for who does and does not count what for the new tax.

        She read the paragraph, handed me the booklet and declared “That makes absolutely no sense. It sounds like some foreign language. What the hell does it say?”

        To which I replied, “It says I am going to rip the head off any Democrat I see from here on out”.

        She said, “Now I understand”.

        I wonder how many others are having this experience right now?

        I suggest copies of the Instructions for this new tax be copied and HANDED to every Congress critter. Tell them you will pay it and vote for them IF, and ONLY IF, they can tell you what it says. If not they DO NOT DESERVE to be elected to Federal Office.

        Congress passed some laws many years ago requiring the IRS to issue regulations and instructions in easily understood wording. THIS Obamination FAILS MISERABLY to even come close to this requirement.

        OK, ranting is now over.

        How are things in your neck of the woods? Warming up here.

      • Hahaha ran into a guy that worked for me years ago, asked about a job….said his unemployment had run out.

  59. Quick question on the maryjane issue. If you keep the legal age at 21 as for alcohol, exactly how do you expect to have a major impact on illegal use? Seems that the bulk of users, fall into the under 21 group. Maybe be wrong on that, haven’t checked the stats but it must be a huge number. Legalization would also seem to encourage more of that under 21 group to participate. Thoughts?

    • Sedgewick says:

      I don’t think it is that relevant.

      Drugs and alcohol are readily available. The free will to choose exists. People that do, do so in spite of law. Those who don’t are likely choosing for other reasons.

    • Most drinkers are over 21. Most of the started drinking before that, to be a teen is to experiment. I can see the legal making it easier for underage as supply would simply increase. But it was not hard to get when I was a kid in school. Would be harder today for me clumsily asking where to buy & getting busted by an undercover.

      • Can see the cartel types making a full court press on the youth. Legal for booze in NY was 18 for me. I always said that the last beer I had the day before I turned 18 was probably the best I would ever have!

  60. New post up.

%d bloggers like this: