click it or ticket

[InhumanAcura 5,000+ posts]

the taxes wouldn't cover it. the only way is if the government were to grow it and distribute it all themselves not allowing a private sector to manufacture or distribute. that may get it close.

ding, ding, ding!!!

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

the taxes wouldn't cover it. the only way is if the government were to grow it and distribute it all themselves not allowing a private sector to manufacture or distribute. that may get it close.

Who chooses what drugs, what potency, etc?

 

[iceteebone 5,000+ posts]

an 11 page thread because some juvenile delinquent is too paranoid to wear a seatbelt //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

ding, ding, ding!!!

The government is not allowed to compete with the private sector. Wouldn't they be competing with pharmaceuticals if the did this?

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Who chooses what drugs, what potency, etc?

i don't have an answer for that. i would guess the FDA would have alot to do with it.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

The government is not allowed to compete with the private sector. Wouldn't they be competing with pharmaceuticals if the did this?

the difficult part would be the drugs that pharmaceuticals already produce and distribute, including marijuana. it may be impossible to keep the private sector out. which goes back to the point of it being illegal because of financial reasons as opposed to moral ones.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Like I said...the costs are too high.

 

[m4i2k2e2 10+ year member]

i get the concept of the law, it keeps you safer in your car than not wearing one. but what i dont like is someone telling me i HAVE to wear it when its something that will only effect me by not wearing it. dont protect me from myself. if that were the case i wouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods etc.
when i hear a story of someone flying out of their car and killing someone else, then i will wear it!!!!!

it effects your whole family, everyone that knows you. if you get injured or whatever it effects more that just you.

theres laws about everything. i wear mine. its really not hard nor a problem wearing it.

 

[m4i2k2e2 10+ year member]

i get the concept of the law, it keeps you safer in your car than not wearing one. but what i dont like is someone telling me i HAVE to wear it when its something that will only effect me by not wearing it. dont protect me from myself. if that were the case i wouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods etc.
when i hear a story of someone flying out of their car and killing someone else, then i will wear it!!!!!

it effects your whole family, everyone that knows you. if you get injured or whatever it effects more that just you.

theres laws about everything. i wear mine. its really not hard nor a problem wearing it.

 

[m4i2k2e2 10+ year member]

i get the concept of the law, it keeps you safer in your car than not wearing one. but what i dont like is someone telling me i HAVE to wear it when its something that will only effect me by not wearing it. dont protect me from myself. if that were the case i wouldnt be able to smoke, drink, eat fatty foods etc.
when i hear a story of someone flying out of their car and killing someone else, then i will wear it!!!!!

it effects your whole family, everyone that knows you. if you get injured or whatever it effects more that just you.

theres laws about everything. i wear mine. its really not hard nor a problem wearing it.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Like I said...the costs are too high.

or, the way i see it, the profits too low. essentially the same thing. they make more money or spend less with it illegal.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

or, the way i see it, the profits too low. essentially the same thing. they make more money or spend less with it illegal.

Exactly, it sucks though

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

Im not sure how this became a legalizing drug thread but my .02 is if big tobacco can make a fortune and pay taxes out the *** you would think you could do the same with marijuana. Which IMO is the only drug to even be considered for legalization.

 

[azimuth 5,000+ posts]

Im not sure how this became a legalizing drug thread but my .02 is if big tobacco can make a fortune and pay taxes out the *** you would think you could do the same with marijuana. Which IMO is the only drug to even be considered for legalization.

it's actually legal here in denver. they go against the voters though and arrest on state charges.

 

[mokedaddy 5,000+ posts]

it's actually legal here in denver. they go against the voters though and arrest on state charges.

I thought only possession was legal but not distribution? For it to be profitable it would have to be legal and distributed legally for it to be taxed.