Pot and gay marriage
- Thread starter Drop.Tine
- Start date
When you consider how musch a person spends on income, sales, property, and all other taxes would be in each persons hands, it wouldn't be a hardship to pay for the schools, fire , police, etc when services were needed.
If a person was allowed to be authorized to patrol for traffic violations, it wouldn't be hard to make a living at it. There are volunteer fire depts everywhere opperating on annual fees and fire call charges. Security can be paid for individually. Private schools are everybit equal to if not superior to public.
You guys are just scared to stand on your own feet. Others are just scared of losing their precious government jobs.
If a person was allowed to be authorized to patrol for traffic violations, it wouldn't be hard to make a living at it. There are volunteer fire depts everywhere opperating on annual fees and fire call charges. Security can be paid for individually. Private schools are everybit equal to if not superior to public.
You guys are just scared to stand on your own feet. Others are just scared of losing their precious government jobs.
yes it would, you have no idea how much those services cost. Don't forget we mandate school attendance; what you are saying is we should mandate a $10k+ tax per child during their school years. That's just nuts. Do you realize what it costs for a fire truck to come and fight a fire at your house? And you're mandating that cost ON TOP OF FIXING YOUR HOUSE THAT BURNED DOWN??? You have no heart and no brain.
The fire department one is an especially stupid idea; what you would want, ideally, is fire insurance, not a fire use tax. You don't charge people 5 figures for calling 911 to request help in putting out a fire. You charge them a couple hundred per year to pay for the fire department when they are needed. Fire fighting service is the definition of an insurable risk - it's low frequency and high severity, and the quality of service increases rapidly with training. Guess what? This is EXACTLY how taxation for fire departments works in most areas in the US!
Do you realize how ridiculous the idea of "volunteer traffic cops" is?
Also, there is a reason major cities do not have volunteer fire departments anymore; there is value in having a trained, professional force in an area that has a critical mass of fires Volunteer forces are much more common in areas with low population where the cost of keeping a standing fire department is unnecessary.
I am becoming convinced again that you are a parody of a right wing zealot; you can't really think any of these ideas are good.
Doing the opposite of what he wants is a better governing philosophy than what 99% of politicians, R or D, are doing right now.
If you think legalizing pot isn't endorsing it then there is no need to legalize it. What is the difference between daily tobacco use or daily pot use? Both are health hazzards, both are annoying to be around, but one impairs the judgement and behavior of the user. One we are trying to eliminate and one we are trying to legitimize.
It just amazes me that so many who are tobacco nazis support the legalization of pot! I oppose both the same. I discourage the use of either but want the individual choice given to all.
Avoided questions:
1) Why pot but not other drugs?
2) What level of pot use is "safe".
It just amazes me that so many who are tobacco nazis support the legalization of pot! I oppose both the same. I discourage the use of either but want the individual choice given to all.
Avoided questions:
1) Why pot but not other drugs?
2) What level of pot use is "safe".
1. You really think there's no difference between pot and meth.
2. There's a responsible limit to pot, tobacco, alcohol, etc. I think if you're hurting someone or are putting yourself in a situation to hurt someone, that's irresponsible.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
2. There's a responsible limit to pot, tobacco, alcohol, etc. I think if you're hurting someone or are putting yourself in a situation to hurt someone, that's irresponsible.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
1) Both are drugs. Both are addictive. Both affect judgement and reaction. They have different degrees of all the above.
2) NM said there was no safe level of tobacco use. He has yet to say whether there is a safe level of pot use that he wants to increase the use of while trying to decrease the use of tobacco. Responsible is your word. If they aren't safe to use how can they be used responsibly?
A
ag-man
Guest
Since NM is not opposed to "sin taxes" , I will be anxiously awaiting the "gay tax" and the " obesity tax".
Maybe they will be effective deterrents to bad behavior and efficient ways to raise revenue.
Maybe they will be effective deterrents to bad behavior and efficient ways to raise revenue.
I'm not opposed to national actions which deal with obesity. It is a national crisis. But, I think it has to be about managing behaviors which lead to obesity. It can't just be a punishment for being fat.
As for the gay tax, I think you know where I stand on that idea. A couple hundred years of legalized discrimination is bad enough.
I would bet every penny I own against this, I think you would get slaughtered in a test of basic economic and civics knowledge vs. Buck (and I disagree with Buck a lot.) Your posts show you are ignorant of basic facts. It's the core reason your ideas are so ridiculous - you don't understand what you are talking about so most of what you say is gibberish.
Where have I ever argued pot use was better or safer than tobacco use? You're making stuff up again. I don't think there is good data on the health effects of pot long-term, but I think it's rational to think it's hazardous to one's health, and that the optimal amount of use is probably zero.
I think there is good data that pot isn't more addictive than alcohol or tobacco, and that the short-term health impacts of it aren't worse than alcohol.
My argument is that it should be legal and taxed just like tobacco. The use of it is not a desired behavior. But, our war on pot has failed; it is a colossal waste of government resources fighting against a substance which isn't worse than alcohol or cigarettes. Instead of spending billions on a war against pot, we should be bringing in billions by taxing the sales of it.
I don't feel this way about meth or heroin - I think the risk of addiction is too high and the impact of that addiction is disproportionately worse than any legal drug.
And I would GLADLY take that bet. Just because I have ideas that are outside the box doesn't mean I don't know how the box is constructed.
I never said you did. I asked the question for a reason and you avoided it for a reason. You argue that tobacco use must be decreased for the good of society yet want to increase use of pot (making it legal will increase use) which is no safer and poses a greater safety hazzard in society. Drivers and workers under the influence of tobacco pose no threat but that can't be said of pot.
You want the revenue not what is best for society. To argue we should not police it aggressively would be a sound arguement if you are concerned about that cost. More pot use is not what we need. Legalize it for the sake of freedom if you want but not because you think it's good for America.
I think everyone should be free to make horrible decisions and suffer the consequences of their choices. The problem with libs is you think we must bear the burden of their choices as society rather than as individuals.
It's not that you think inside or outside of the box; it's that you don't even know what the box is you're supposed to be thinking inside of or outside of.
I think legalizing marijuana is best for society, not just best for revenue. People generally deserve the right to make bad choices if those choices don't impose too many costs on others.
Your comment about tobacco and driving is a red herring; the societal cost of smoking is a combination of second hand smoke impacts and higher health care costs. If you're going to say X is worse than Y, you have to also acknowledge what is the actual fault of Y as a part of the argument if you want to taken seriously.
No, the problem with you and others like you is that you pretend outcomes which are not caused by choices are also individual problems, like being born poor or being unable to get health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition.
Also, how do you not see that your last paragraph is diametrically opposed to every single other word you have written in this entire thread?
Your comment about tobacco and driving is a red herring; the societal cost of smoking is a combination of second hand smoke impacts and higher health care costs. If you're going to say X is worse than Y, you have to also acknowledge what is the actual fault of Y as a part of the argument if you want to taken seriously.
No, the problem with you and others like you is that you pretend outcomes which are not caused by choices are also individual problems, like being born poor or being unable to get health insurance because you have a pre-existing condition.
Also, how do you not see that your last paragraph is diametrically opposed to every single other word you have written in this entire thread?
I have NEVER said tobacco wasn't harmful to ones health, a drain on society, or something to avoid. I have said it was foolish to want more pot and less tobacco (the result of the policies you advocate).
I don't claim all individual problems are a result of choices. Countless people have health issues through no fault of their own. Countless people are born into poverty and poor home situations. LIFE ISN'T FAIR!!!! If you want equality of outcome there are countries that have that.....and everyone is poor. I choose to help those in need around me and would do far more if the good old government would get out of my way!
It is diametrically opposed to what you say i've said but you never show where i've said it when I ask where. My very first post in this thread:
If the arguement is that it doesn't affect me then why is pot considered different than other drugs? No drug use affects me. Do they affect societal decay or advancement? That is the pertinent question. The same applies to homosexuallity.
While I would not advocate making "sins" illegal (drug use or homosexuallity) I also would oppose the government sanctioning any activity detrimental to society. The governments role should be to encourage desired behavior and discourage undesired behavior.
Now show me where your statement is correct.
The Major Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
Antagonism between the Senate and the Emperor
Decline in Morals
Political Corruption and the Praetorian Guard
Fast expansion of the Empire
Constant Wars and Heavy Military Spending
Barbarian Knowledge of Roman Military Tactics
Failing Economy
Unemployment of the Working Classes (The Plebs)
The 'Mob' and the cost of the 'Games'
Decline in Ethics and Values
Slave Labor
Christianity had little to do with the fall of the Empire. That theory is widely criticized as incorrect.
