(01-22-2014 11:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We'll just have to see if Washington and Colorado make money off of it. If they see cold cash, eff opposition.

Because of the 30% tax, the black market price is cheaper. So eff it.

(01-22-2014 11:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We'll just have to see if Washington and Colorado make money off of it. If they see cold cash, eff opposition.

Because of the 30% tax, the black market price is cheaper. So eff it.

We'll see. If it's too high, they'll adjust.

(01-22-2014 11:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We'll just have to see if Washington and Colorado make money off of it. If they see cold cash, eff opposition.

Because of the 30% tax, the black market price is cheaper. So eff it.

We'll see. If it's too high, they'll adjust.

I wouldn't be counting any chickens.

(01-22-2014 11:22 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We'll just have to see if Washington and Colorado make money off of it. If they see cold cash, eff opposition.

Because of the 30% tax, the black market price is cheaper. So eff it.

We'll see. If it's too high, they'll adjust.

I wouldn't be counting any chickens.

Oh I understand.

For the child

(01-22-2014 11:30 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  For the child

Pot is easier for teenagers to find than alcohol, precisely becomes everyone who uses it is a criminal. Why not sell to a kid if you're already breaking the law? If you have a business to protect and license to hold it, you've got things to lose.

(01-22-2014 11:11 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 06:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I have not heard a good argument as to why society needs to allow another socially acceptable intoxicant used specifically for recreational drug use. What purpose does getting high serve? Alcohol this and alcohol that, although aesthetically pleasing to some, it is not that good argument. Ignoring that pot use reduces ambition as well as other documented affects, will not advance the argument for social acceptance either. Then not conceding that making pot socially acceptable will increase the number of children using another intoxicant, and its detrimental effects. What's the matter with you people. Is this another "at this point, what difference does it make", argument.

Sure, something that the government spends billions on and needlessly ruins peoples lives over, what sort of argument could there be?

Also, please show any evidence towards the claims you make regarding ambition and the vague 'other documented affects(sp)'

You are deflecting. Grow up, it is about time you smelled what you are shoveling.

How is it deflecting to tell you legitimate reasons to support this? It would save us money from locking people up for a victimless crime and it would also lower the costs borne to society by effectively removing a portion of society for that victimless crime. It also has the potential to make us fair sums of money by taxing it while simultaneously removing most avenues that underage users currently use to obtain marijuana.

That doesn't even bring up the civil liberties questions involved.

Republicans are against a nanny state until pot is brought up.

(01-22-2014 04:56 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  I have not heard a good argument as to why society needs to allow another socially acceptable intoxicant used specifically for recreational drug use. What purpose does getting high serve? Alcohol this and alcohol that, although aesthetically pleasing to some, it is not that good argument. Ignoring that pot use reduces ambition as well as other documented affects, will not advance the argument for social acceptance either. Then not conceding that making pot socially acceptable will increase the number of children using another intoxicant, and its detrimental effects. What's the matter with you people. Is this another "at this point, what difference does it make", argument.

The bottom line for me is freedom...freedom to do whatever I want as long as I am not harming others. It is our responsibility as adults to keep any substance we feel are not age appropriate away from our children. Prohibitions do not do that. They in fact allow easier access to them by fostering a dangerous black market.

(01-22-2014 11:17 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 11:16 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  We'll just have to see if Washington and Colorado make money off of it. If they see cold cash, eff opposition.

Because of the 30% tax, the black market price is cheaper. So eff it.

I would be willing to pay 30% more to be safe from arrest. The consequences of arrest are very serious for many people. It literally can cost one their livelyhood. The quality,safety and selection of the product sold at retail also make it worth paying more IMO. I predict that the supply will increase due to lifting prohibition. More farmers will enter the marketplace to meet demand. This should drive the price down in time.

Looking at the prices in CO, they seem pretty inline with what street prices were 17 years ago. I have no idea what the street prices are today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

(01-23-2014 02:38 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  Republicans are against a nanny state until pot is brought up.

Democrats are for big gov't and a full blown nanny state. i.e. communism and socialism.

(01-23-2014 07:00 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Looking at the prices in CO, they seem pretty inline with what street prices were 17 years ago. I have no idea what the street prices are today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

My main problem was the measurements.

Drug dealers and their metric system usage.

SAN ANTONIO — Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday that he's for the decriminalization of marijuana use — not legalization, but the softening of punishment for marijuana users in the border state.