ieatcrayonz
-
Posts
8,034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ieatcrayonz
-
-
Ridiculous. On every level. Marijuana has never, in the history of humanity around the world, caused violent crime. Even Crayonz would agree with that. Go smoke a dube and tell me if you feel like getting in a fight or robbing someone for something other than their bag of Doritos.
In fact, if you sold weed at Bills games instead of beer you would see the amount of arrests and fights drop like a stone. Weed does the exact opposite of what alcohol does in that regards.
Click the link in my last post. I might not have seen too many violent hippy loser dirt bags but you know who did see one? They guy in Miami that got his face eaten.
-
No, a government will enact a tax along the lines of the tax it now imposes on alcohol & tobacco, or other vice consumables. And that after-tax price will still be far lower than the current street price of illegal drugs. Why doesn't the government slap a $10 tax on each beer, because it can? Setting a very high tax level on cigarettes is not having the intended impact, because the tax does not curb demand and allows black market operators back in the game. The market always settles on a clearing price in a commodity. In a regulated market where the government has greater sway in retail pricing, the price setting mechanism should also take into account elasticity of demand which will also give you a hint of the potential for black market operators' ability to undercut the "official" price.
So you have cited one example in cigarettes where the government has imposed a tax high enough to create a black market. You cite another where the tax is not high enough to create a black market, or at least not one of any size. I agree that the taxes in both cases have done/not done what you said. Why again is it that they will go the booze route and not the cig route with pot taxes? Because today's street price is so "high"? My guess is that they would figure out today's cost of goods sold per joint, let's call it $.50 and the street price of a joint, let's call it $3. My guess is that the tax would be a whole lot closer to $2.50 than it would be to $0.25. Why do I think this? Because cigarettes have developed a stigmata over the years and their manufacturers have been shaken down by the government. Pot already has a stigmata as it is illegal. I think government would use this stigmata to its advantage and tax away. In addition, the "manufacturing costs and barriers to entry for pot are VERY low compared to either booze or cigs. Sure you can make your own beer and could conceivably grow your own tobacco in some climates but growing pot is pretty darn easy. When pot is legal I would think it would be even easier as there may be diminished pressure on growers to hide. In the case of cigs the government has failed to recognize the low elasticity and has helped create a black market. In the case of booze it has recognized the low elasticity. If you'd like to make a case as to why the tax will look more like the booze tax I'd be glad to hear it.
Clearly cigs do not have a high elasticity of demand due in large part to few suitable substitutes. Booze can be argued as to its elasticity IMO but I would say booze as a whole has a low elasticity but a high elasticity within its own category. If you taxed the crap out of beer a lot more people might drink wine but if you tax the crap out of all booze then it starts to look more like cigs.
My case
Elasticity - Pot - low; cigs - low; Booze - low as a whole, moderate within its own category
Barriers to entry - Cigs - high; Pot low; Booze - moderate for making your own, high if you want to distribute. This component means that the street price of pot has the potential to get lower than it is today. The stigmata of being illegal is to some degree raising the street price. It costs more to hide your manufacturing and distribution than it does to have it in the open. It helps keep costs down when your customers roll their own or just shove it in a bong shaped like a really cool skull or something that makes them seem hip. This is the crux of my argument. Government will use the built in stigmata pot already carries as an excuse to tax it more like cigarettes than like booze.
-
Since we're failing Crayola Economics 101, let's move to Crayola Retailing 101.
The price differential between production/distribution costs and retail price of illegal drugs has a far greater profit margin built in than what the likely taxation on drugs will be.
So you're saying that government will decide out of the goodness of its own heart to not create a tax in the amount representing street price minus costs minus a decent margin to competitive manufacturers? Stated another way, you think the government will knowingly leave easily attained tax revenue on the table. Good one.
-
-
Time to brush up on the Crayola MBA course on supply/demand economics.
The current price of pot, or any illegal drug, carries a significant price premium over its marginal cost of production due to control of the retail supply chain and the risk of distribution. By legalizing it you remove that premium, so even if you tax the crap out of it, it will be nowhere near the current street price.
But hey, it's much more productive to argue that 100-year old drug laws were passed based on a rational examination of the facts at that time, versus cherry picking favored drugs of polite society vs the demons of blacks & immigrants.
How much is the the cost of producing and distributing a pack of cigarettes? How much does a pack of cigarettes cost to buy?
I have read that some Native Americans now have their own cigarette brands to skirt the tax laws. They constructed manufacturing facilities, brought in the raw materials, manufactured the product, fought sovereignty issues in courts and relied on their customer base to drive to their reservation land with $4 gas for the sole purpose of buying cigarettes with a non name brand. And they are flourishing. People do this because the huge component of the of the cost of a pack at the corner store is tax. And the government wouldn't repeat the process with pot because.......?
-
How much money does Jack Daniels make....compared to moonshiners?
Why would Pfizer cocaine be any different? Do you really think the jackass on the corner, or the series of jackasses leading up to him, can compete with our pharma companies on quality or price? Please. Never mind the fact that you can sue the hell out of them, if they don't deliver the goods? Who should we see if they guy on the corner cuts his stuff with draino?
Yeah, there goes that emotional argument disguised to look factual.
The fact that mommy, daddy?, whoever, is an idiot, has nothing to do with whether drugs are legal or not.
Case in point: people that can't get a hold of Jack Daniels, find a way to get a hold of sterno. Now, should we make sterno illegal, because some clown drinks that? Why not? Clearly drinking sterno is just as bad for you as any poorly cut/made drugs. The fact that somebody would even consider drinking sterno, shows that Jack Daniels, or moonshine is not the problem. The problem is the person.
Let me see if I understand your non-emotional argument here:
The average coked up loser pot head has a brand preference. Oh wait, then you said they don't. But it should be good because in today's environment these poor pot heads have nobody to sue if they get bad weed?
The only emotional part of this whole thing is the validation hippy loser dirt bags are seeking for what even they, in their rotted inner core, know is wrong. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of loser boozers either and they have had this validation for years. What percentage of people who have at least one drink per year are alkies? How about pot head losers? What percentage of those plan out their hole daily agenda based on their next toke? Crack heads? Coke heads? Those percentages are the non-emotional part of this whole thing.
-
This is a very good analogy. The mob had very little action in the cigarette racket until NY decided it would be a grand idea to tax a pack to over $10. Talk about a windfall for the racketeers.
You are so right because I'm sure states would never think of taxing the crap out of legal pot.
:wallbash: 
-
For some, sure. But not for most. There are more conservative leaning stars than people realize. And the real power players in Hollywood, the studio heads, network chiefs, the super agents, they slant hugely to the right. Those are the people that get stuff made and distributed. The notion that all of Hollywood pushes a leftist agenda is factually untrue. It's a nice talking point, but it's not reality.
To the right of what? The Kremlin is all I got.
-
The best way to end the argument is to simply ask these people why they are in favor of providing criminals a multi-billion $ vehicle to gain money, power, and the ability to corrupt our government and ruin lives, while spending mutli-billion $ countering the effects/treating the symptoms of the vehicle they created.
They will try to wriggle out of it, but this is the central issue here. Don't distract. It's more fun to watch them wriggle.
How about the premise that living in a world free of morons running around asking what if up is really down and down is really up.....whoa maaaaaaan...... is worth the risk of spending billions and possibly getting no results? I would personally spend at least $25B if I never had to see one of these dopes on TV wasting their lives and yammering on about pot as if it were the only friggin thing of any value on the entire Earth meanwhile their kid is at home and unable to come to grips with the concept of work because he has never seen daddy or mommy do anything difficult except try to piece together a logical argument for glorifying the use of drug which when taken strips them of the ability to use logic at all. And your doped up argument that there would be no criminality or black market in pot if it were only legalized so you could stop feeling guilt for doing something which is clearly wrong simply because Mr. government says it is ok so it must be ok is laughable. Do you think there is anyone making money off illegal cigarettes or booze? Why would that be different with pot?
I had no idea Ringo Starr played for Nirvana.
Neither did he or they because they were all friggin stoned.
-
You're right! Nothing good has ever been created by people under the influence of pot. Nothing whatsoever. If not for pot, we'd never have to suffer through the horrific noise created by so called "musicians" such as The Beatles, Led Zeplin, Marvin Gaye, Bob Dylan, James Brown, Bruce Springsteen, Nirvana, Bob Marley, The Eagles, Miles Davis, Pink Floyd, Ray Charles, David Bowie, Grateful Dead, Stevie Vaughan, Tribe Called Quest, My Morning Jacket, Tupac, Otis Redding, Sam Cooke, Kings of Leon, Parliament, Tom Petty, Warren Zevon....
In a world without pot we'd finally get what the kind of music we all really want.
So if pot takes credit for all the supposably "great" music these people put out that is fine I guess. I guess it must also have to take credit for all the other stuff they did too or is that where the excuse o rama kicks in?
The Beatles - Married Yoko Ono; let Ringo Starr join the band
Led Zeplin - Wore jeans clearly made for girl; drummer puked himself to death
Marvin Gaye - Shot his father or maybe that was James Hardly but something happened
Bob Dylan - Where do I begin? Annoyed millions just by talking or singing or whatever the heck that is
James Brown - Beat the ever loving crap out of Tina Turner
Bruce Springsteen - Completely and utterly sucks.....plus the wife who inspired the internet sensation the annoying orange
Nirvana - See entry for Beatles replace the part which says "Yoko Ono" with the phrase "Courtney Love",
Bob Marley - Begat Ziggy
The Eagles - In contention with Belgium and Belgiums for most boring in history award.
Miles Davis - I like this dude....don't know if he ever smoked
Pink Floyd - 80% of band doesn't get along; 20% lives in a mental institution
Ray Charles - I think there is something positive here inasmuch as he disproved the idiotic theory that pot cures glaucoma.
David Bowie - Started the slippery slope that gave us Boy George
Grateful Dead - If it weren't for The Eagles and Belgium they would at least be the best at something. I will give them credit for the bear stickers and skull stickers on cars which make idiots easy to identify. I hope I don't get suspended for this
Stevie Vaughan - Kinda liked him
Tribe Called Quest - Never heard of him but he must have been stoned when he named his band
My Morning Jacket - How many coats do you Hollywood types need in one day anyway?
Tupac - Pot smoking leads to a gang war.....nice case you're making here.
Otis Redding - I think all that partying in Animal House was for the sake of the movie dude. You write crap like that; you should know a lot of it is made up
Sam Cooke - Doped up and fooled by a loose woman and look what it got him
Kings of Leon - We're digging here when we use the word music aren't we?
Parliament - Great, talented and original and the best they can end up doing is a cameo in a Jeremy Piven movie? Can you say wasted potential?
Tom Petty - See Bob Dylan; add ridiculous hair and a human birthday cake ,
Warren Zevon - I can see including this dude if you are somehow making an alphabetical list and need a way to end it but you weren't making an alphabetical list unless of course you are stoned again.
P.S. You forgot those great musicians Cheech and Chong and their big hit Sister Mary Elizabeth.
-
This friggin thread had better not end like the dating an older woman thread.
-
Eventually, eventually we will realize that drug laws we've had are largely an emotional argument. Talk all you want, when you get done, all you'll have is ultimately an emotional argument. Sure facts can be drawn in and nicely put in place, but the root argument will still be emotional. I am merely patiently waiting for you, and the rest the emoters, to finish your tantrums, calm down, and see reason.
I am aware it will take years, and I am also aware some tantrums will never end, because ending them would mean admitting they were pointless, and that you were wrong.(ahem, Bill O'Reilly)You would have thought that we would have learned from the 20s.
You would have thought that we would have learned that locking people up is not a valid response to them offending our sensibilities. Our sensibilities just aren't that valuable, and become completely insignificant when the cost of defending them requires us to voluntarily put large sums of cash in the hands of criminals and/or create a vehicle to fund violence all over the world.
That's what the alcohol "war" was all about: a way to lock up the immigrants who dared to offend our sensibilities by being catholic, and new, and shabby, and enjoying their booze.
That's what the drug "war" was all about: a way to lock up the people who were tired of uptight, boring and uninspired, being the new normal, and who not only offended our sensibilities, but dared to question the judgmental, yet hypocritical, phony moral superiority, and the mass denial of reality, domestic violence, and anything else that wasn't "pleasant", of the 50s.
As always moderation is the key. Too many hippies, or too many squares, pushing the pendulum too far to one side or the other, is problematic. But, in all cases, making something illegal, and opening the door to criminals, is NEVER a solution to anything. It certainly will not make parents better at their jobs, cops better at theirs, or people in general better at making good choices. The solutions to those problems have 0 in common with drugs being illegal or not. The only thing drugs being illegal does effectively: create an underground economy that draws a lot of good people into bad choices, because it's so lucrative.
Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again.
-
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,2110514,00.html?iid=redirect-fareed_zakaria
The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. That's not just many more than in most other developed countries but seven to 10 times as many. Japan has 63 per 100,000, Germany has 90, France has 96, South Korea has 97, and Britain--with a rate among the highest--has 153.
We here in America make up 5% of the world's population but we make up 25% of the [world's] jailed prisoners.
This wide gap between the U.S. and the rest of the world is relatively recent. In 1980 the U.S.'s prison population was about 150 per 100,000 adults. It has more than quadrupled since then. So something has happened in the past 30 years to push millions of Americans into prison.
That something, of course, is the war on drugs.
Drug convictions went from 15 inmates per 100,000 adults in 1980 to 148 in 1996, an almost tenfold increase. More than half of America's federal inmates today are in prison on drug convictions. In 2009 alone, 1.66 million Americans were arrested on drug charges, more than were arrested on assault or larceny charges. And 4 of 5 of those arrests were simply for possession.
In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons vs. $5.7 billion on the UC system and state colleges. Since 1980, California has built one college campus and 21 prisons. A college student costs the state $8,667 per year; a prisoner costs it $45,006 a year.
This is why I hate pot. Not only does it make people stoned idiots all day it also cranks up their excuse-o-rama. Guess what? If we didn't have laws against murder then the jails would be emptier too.
-
I can't see Sarah Jessica Parker without thinking about her character from the outstanding movie "LA Stories."
She's the stereotypical bouncy, bubble-headed California chick dating the aging Steve Martin. She takes him to the new trend in California at the time: a high colonic shop.
????????
I thought stereotypical bouncy, bubble headed California chicks were good looking. She pretty much missed that part of the stereotype.
-
Because of inconsiderate and hypocritical jackasses like me who complain about ad hominems while in the same sentence subtly tossing insults.
I don't see why the ad homonyms get thrown around either. Frankly, I don't get why anything to do with someone's sexual habits ends up being political whether it is homonym or heteronym or binym or whatever.
-
-
-
Any updates on this?
-
There is a one word solution to all of this but if I type it I won't be able to come back here and see the solution. This is quite a dilemma. Maybe jboys should type it because he evidently doesn't have to follow the same rules that I do.
-
It's reprehensible of you to assume that there were two guys in that picture. If I was a European woman I'd be good and pissed at you. What makes you think the guy just died? Lawsuits take awhile to get to court, you know.
I don't really want to go into a whole lesson on human anatomy just for your sake because this is a family board.
What you propose as possible is clearly not. Let's go with what we know:
The article states that there were two guys. My statement was not simple conjecture from a picture.
It is possible that one of the dudes shaves his legs and that one of the chicks is a euro-chick with hairy and muscular legs, I will grant you that except you would think it would have come up in the trail by lawyers for the defense in an effort to impound the credibility of the dead dude.
I have no idea when the guy died but the picture was clearly taken pretty soon after the death because although all 5 legs are unattractive, none of them are rotting like a corpse.
In the future please pay attention to details before accusing people of being uninformed.
P.S. You are right about one thing. If you were a euro chick you would be pissed at me because euro-chicks are unable to handle the truth and I deal in the truth.
-
It's the doctor's fault he got involved in a threesome the day before a heart test.
I don't even want to get into the political aspects but your link is sick. Why would they take a picture like that when the guy just died? And did the guy with two legs die or was it the guy with only one leg?
-
Winner
If he changed "plenty" to "plentiful" and took out the "of" it would have been 10/10. As it stands I'll give it 9.5.
-
I think the expedition started today and yet nothing. Did they disappear?
-
the guy who makes the most should perform the best
Well we have a guy who signed a huge contract and then discovered he had a boo boo foot.
:huh:
Hippy loser dirt bags rejoice
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Perhaps you didn't read the HEADLINE: