West Bend Common Council Approves Loan to Bring Delta Defense to West Bend  |   Home  |   Blessings

Dude… Like… I Know My Weed

Chuckle.

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) — The job description requests an unlikely mix of skills: five years of regulatory experience, with a law degree preferred, and extensive knowledge of all things marijuana.

But that didn’t stop dozens of people from turning out Wednesday — in flannel and suits, ponytails and hemp necklaces — to find out more about becoming Washington state’s official marijuana consultant.

Posted by Owen at 0719 hrs
Culture + Politics + Politics - General

1. America’s Funniest home Videos should be taping those interviews.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 0904 hrs
   
   
   

2. Tommy Chong!

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1746 hrs
   
   
   

3. I would imagine the easiest way to do this is to simply allow liquor stores to sell marijuana.
   They are licensed, accustomed to checking IDs, etc.
   It’s about time to end this foolish prohibition.
   Less money for the drug lords.

   Posted by Charlie Hillman on January 31, 2013 at 1823 hrs
   
   
   

4. Right, Charlie, because the drug lords would simply acquiesce to the regulation of weed, coke, and heroin by the U.S. government.  They would be willing participants in paying their taxes and ensuring their product met federal standards.  /sarcasm

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0001 hrs
   
   
   

5. Actually they’d just be out-competed on the pot market because any idiot can grow pot.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 1005 hrs
   
   
   

6. I’d agree the drug lords would be knocked out by market forces.

   The competitive price would come down so much that the trade of pot from drug lords would take most of the existing profit out of the equation for them.

   Local producers can probably do it more efficiently.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 1014 hrs
   
   
   

7. Greencarmen way to completely miss the point.  If people could grow their own or buy marijuana at local shops of course that takes money out of the drug cartels hands.  Not too difficult to understand.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 1822 hrs
   
   
   

8. the drug lords would simply acquiesce

   It worked for alcohol. Very few drive by shootings over Jack Daniels.

   any idiot can grow pot.

   Any idiot can run a still.

   Posted by Charlie Hillman on February 01, 2013 at 2359 hrs
   
   
   

9. If citizens in a state vote on the matter, then it’s there call to make.  Majority rules.  Toke up!

   But, let’s go for broke.  Let’s have Congress legalize pot -and- all hard drugs.  Why the hell not?  Besides, Charlie, your comparison of prohibition of yesterday to legalizing drugs today fails to take into consideration the complex, international, operational apparatus of the cartels.  I do not believe the drug lords will go “legitimate”, i.e. work to abide by government regulations.  Nay, their history suggests they will work to shut down any and all competitors who must comply with federal or state drug laws.  We are talking about opening up a can of worms.

   
   rdub—“If people could grow their own or buy marijuana at local shops of course that takes money out of the drug cartels hands.”

   And the drug cartels will sit idly by if pot is legal everywhere in the U.S.?  You don’t think they will want to get in on the action and avoid paying taxes or following regulations (i.e. good weed versus bad weed, although some would argue it doesn’t matter as long as its weed). 

   Again, if the people of a states say yes through a referendum regarding the legalizing of pot, then fine.  I don’t agree, but that is why we have representative government.  Do you agree, Mr. Schuenemann?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 0918 hrs
   
   
   

10. greencarman,

    I don’t have a problem with electorate voting it in as legal…I think it should have a healthy tax.

    It would be great if the pot tax could wipe out the income tax or state sales tax.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 1117 hrs
    
    
    

11. I think it should have a healthy tax.

    I think it should be commensurate with a tax on soft serve and high capacity sodas?

    You on board with that Kev?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 1201 hrs
    
    
    

12. Fu,

    It depends, would we wipe out other taxes as a tradeoff?

    Or would this be just a typical socialist coveting government power grab?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 1304 hrs
    
    
    

13. I always new Kevin was a big-government, pro-tax kinda guy

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 1829 hrs
    
    
    

14. VA,

    I don’t know where you get “pro-tax” out of that.

    If we replace burdensome taxes like income, and sales tax, which offer little choice to citizens to avoid, in favor of a pot tax…a tax which could be avoided, by not smoking it, I think that is a good trade.

    I’d be against any tax increase on anything, unless we get rid of bigger, more intrusive taxes elsewhere.

    I think increasing the choice of the citizen and their ability ability to avoid taxes is a good thing.  Abolishing the income tax in favor of a pot tax would be a great choice in my view.

    It would be a tax I would never have to pay.  Pot smokers can enjoy their vice while paying taxes income taxpayers would have paid.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 02, 2013 at 1952 hrs
    
    
    

15. I think it should have a healthy tax.

    Duh. That’s why your pro tax. That statement is independent of your “it’d be great if” the new tax could wipe out the old tax. Spin it all you want, you want the gov’t to create a new tax on weed. Sure, you’d be happy if it replaced a different tax. You’d also probably be happy if unicorns existed. But, regardless of whether it wiped out another tax, you want weed taxed. Such a big government, pro tax position.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2013 at 1351 hrs
    
    
    

16. VA,

    But I also made it contingent that we abolish other, more onerous taxes.

    Not just lumbering forward of extracting more money in covetous, liberal-like, fashion.

    Their is a difference in morality in wanting a new sin tax to abolish income and/or sales tax, vs. just wanting a new tax.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 03, 2013 at 1500 hrs
    
    
    

17. Huh, if there were a healthy enough tax the drug lords would still have play on selling untaxed weed.  Kind of defeats that ‘hurt the drug lord’ slogan in my book.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2013 at 1126 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.