image stats
rating
2.93
votes
15
views
1401
uploader
Anonymous
comments
39
date added
2009-07-12
category
Sport
previous votes
Loading..
log in
Username:

Password


indent register
indent recover

Prohibiton Profit

1 star2 stars3 stars4 stars5 stars
Prohibiton Profit

Comments for: Prohibiton Profit
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2009 01:07AM

I agree, but...
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2009 06:11AM

Legalize marijuana is a fine concept but guess what, there won't be anywhere you could smoke it. Places we can smoke cigarettes are dwindeling down so by the time the legalize pot there will be nowhere you can smoke it.
lester Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2009 09:45PM

ain't that the truth By the time big brother gets done we will have to smoke in a cave,not before we spend thousand of dollars in hepa filters, ect lol in Ontario Canada where i live , u now cannot smoke in any motorized vehicle that has a child under 16 in it ... I see 14 and 15 year olds standing in front of the high school puffing away every morning lmao
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 13, 2009 10:53PM

You cannot wear, exude or produce anything that might be offensive to another person.
If I were to take offence to men's deodorant I would be in a minority and not get anywhere. But if I could get enough people to joing me I could have some legislation brought into effect.
In practice this means that anything legislated against (smoking in clubs, cars with minors etc) should have only come about due to a well supported campaign by persons who are seriously offended. This is not the case, most of these laws come into effect becasue the government is doing what it claims is "in the best interest of the people".
Rather than have my elected officials do what they think is best for me, I would rather vote on such things (Even though I despise smokers).
I saw a guy refused his seat on an aeroplane because his shirt read "fuck off" or something to that effect. I have read about this on several occasions and this is just the beginning.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 12:39AM

i was wearing this one time, a lady walks up and says, "i know what that means, and it's extremely offensive". i just laughed and said, "i'm glad the right person was able to translate that". (*butt*)
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 06:45AM

Something needs to be done. We are getting less free everyday. It is not just Odamna's fault either, although he is working hard for socialism, this has been happening for decades. These laws are brought about by people who allowed political correctness to run amuck. I will be curious to see what 2012 brings about with our next presidential election and all. When I go to the polls in 2010 I intend to vote against every incumbent and I advise everyone to do the same, we need to send a message.
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 11:35AM

voidnow.org
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 03:57PM

Wow - you guys are even more stupid than I gave you credit for!

If you vote out all the incumbent politicians you will send a message alright - a message that the general population is too stupid to actually look at the issues in order to decide how they are to be governed.

If this campaign was successful all of the newly elected officials will believe they were elected because of their campaigns and act accodingly, whereas in reality they would have been elected because people were trying to 'send a message'. The problem is they have no idea what that message is because your message, or at least your motivation behind your message, is different to your neighbour's, to the guy who lives 3 blocks away, to the woman at the checkout at your local supermarket.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/07/2009 03:59PM by GAK67.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 05:57PM

Gak, your Prime Minister is/was a lesbian. How did that happen?
Then again, ours is Mr Sheen, what a blunder!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/07/2009 06:00PM by woberto.
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 06:03PM

wobby - try and keep up. NZ parliament may have had a stoner rastafrian with dreads, a transgendered ex stripper and a female PM with a manly voice and a face longer than a horse, but they are all gone now. Our current PM does like women, but is not one himself (John Key).
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 06:03PM

Your point is well taken and certainly one I've pondered in calculating the effectiveness of such a campaign against the incumbents GAK. With that having been said it seems no matter how you look at it a thorough house cleaning is about the only reasonable course available to the American people in trying to make their message heard.

The largest 2 issues hotly debated within the US in recent years have been illegal immigration and the financial bailouts. While both issues were continuously polled by multiple sources, impartial and otherwise, the public outcries by Americans were pretty strong in how John Q Public felt about them both. Both issues had the offices of our Representatives and Senators phones ringing off the walls, their fax lines jammed and their email boxes stuffed to overflowing with what John Q had to say and it was clearly AGAINST what was voted in in regards to the bailouts and the vote on the amnesty for illegals just barely squeeked by as a victory for the forces against the amnesty the legislation proposed.

When the elected government refuses to do their job, which is to represent their constituants wishes in their stead, what recourse is really left to us but to simply unseat them? The American public by and large on both sides of the political fence are beginning to feel as if no matter what is said or done by the people that elected them, their elected officials simply refuse to act upon the desires made known by the people themselves.

If this (unseating all incumbents) were to occur there would surely be current elected officials unseated that DO work for the people that seated them, while MANY more who do not would also be unseated which would seemingly be the greater good in the long run.

A great number of the citizenry here are amenable to the concept of term limitation for elected officials much like what the office of President is limited to, which is 2 terms. This alone if enacted would have a great effect on how our national government is run as no elected official could then hold court in their little fiefdoms as is the case now and would put the legislative branches back to what they were intended to be where each state received equal representation in the national government. In todays system every long term legislator holds more sway in congress than does a junior member, causing an imbalance in the way things work and this needs to be eliminated.

The problem with getting this to ever become law of course is that the same legislators would be required to agree to such a change, a majority in the House and Senate approve it, then be signed off on by the President ...... which is never gonna happen angry
smiley

smoking
smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 06:25PM

BTW, back to the original topic ....

If the US government ceased its (totally ineffective) War On Drugs, took the same $$ it spends now on this worthless pursuit and instead invested it in education and treatment of addicts as opposed to simply making them criminals, then paying for years of their incarceration costs it would seem much more prudent in the long term. If we legalized drugs, oversaw their production and sales and taxed them (and man they would tax the shit outta DRUGZ!) it would be a move in a much more positive direction.

I mean really, a fuckin whole pound of cocaine/heroin/opium is no more dangerous than a gun, a knife or even a stick/rock to humans. HUMANS are dangerous to humans, plain and simple, the rest are just inanimate objects which become tools used by humans.

There's an old saw that seems to fit well in this discussion which is "You can't legislate morality." Anyone who doesn't see the laws against drugs as an attempt to do exactly that would do well to take a little trip within self and ask where exactly that thought resides if NOT in some sense of morality, and of course for the even more inane, in some belief that they are their brothers keepers and hence know what's best for them .... which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether (*facepalm*)

smoking
smiley
GAK67 Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 06:39PM

Mrkim - some well thought out responses there. I do take issue with one part of your arguement though - the idea of not legislating for morality. In actual fact most (if not all) criminal law is based on morality, albeit more widely accepted than that relating to the legalization of drugs. Murder, theft (robbery, burglary, fraud, etc), assault are all morality based laws. It's just that when we get to things such as drugs the morality is not as clearly defined in social norms depending on which part of society you are in at the time - i.e. you would struggle to find people in society that would say cold blooded murder was ok, but you would easily find people that say recreational drug use - particularly marijuana - was acceptable. As we live in a democracy (I am assuming that most people visiting here do) it should come down to what the majority of us say.
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 07:25PM

have a
pepsi
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 14, 2009 09:12PM

The "people" here haven't even been asked about what they thought about drugs in years, nor will they be. Of course that's the way "they" want it, so it's kinda like .... (*horse*)

smoking
smiley
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2009 06:36AM

There needs to be a way for the people to make their feelings known on any issue so that our representatives hear it rather they want to or not. If there was a national campaign started and promoted in the media before the election for a clean sweep election then the newly elected politicians would know full well why they were elected. They would then know to either preform properly or lose their jobs next election. A clean sweep can work but it will have to be handled nationally and publicly with full knowledge of what it means.

There will never be legalization of drugs nor any aid for drug users. All you have to do is look at what is being done to smokers to see that there is no desire in this country spend money to help any form of addiction. All they want to do is tax the problem and if they help the people with the addiction then they lose that tax base and the money it brings in. Does anyone really believe taxing the issue will cure the problem.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2009 07:16AM

If you are a business owner you will see the next tax on the horizon.
Carbon.
$$$$$
quasi Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2009 04:00PM

Cheeseburger & fries tax.
$$$$$$$$$
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2009 05:55PM

every time i say "liberal cocksucker"........free. (*butt*)
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2009 06:07PM

The "media" is about as firmly in the pockets of the demofaggic party as they can be at this point. With many of the incumbents being newly elected or re-elected demofags who have now secured not only the majority in the House and Senate, but in the grand puppetmasters office (and cabinet) too, I certainly wouldn't be expecting much help from the "media" in getting behind any such major unseating operation in the coming elections.

The good ol www is the best thing going these days as a rallying point for individuals and it did play a major hand in defeating the illegal immigrant amnesty measure as people emailed, faxed and even actually called their representatives from a call to arms that rang out on both sides of the issue, but was hammered out almost daily on the net in forums, news groups, etc..

Then again, our new puppet also used the www to his advantage during the campaign as did many others as they all saw the writing on the wall and came to realize it was cheap and easy marketing posturing that could reach audiences asleep during the day, not mindful of the printed news sources and for lots of other reasons.

But ..... beware, the move is on globally to limit what can be done and said on the www and the intended censorship/taxation that will come of it all in the end will most certainly be pointed in a fashion to limit what is acceptable, what is to be considered "hate speech", and all manner of restraints that will be used by the politically correct powers that be to limit its effectiveness in the future.

One really need look no further than the extreme examples of outright governmental censorship and another form of it through service denials going on in China, Iran and North Korea as these places are attempting to squash the cell phone and internet mediums when it's to their advantage to do so to get a look at where this could all be headed with -> monty
smiles as their goal.

smoking
smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15/07/2009 06:10PM by Mrkim.
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 15, 2009 07:40PM

I just read three different articles about California legalising pot but remain clueless as to what is actually proposed or has in fact happened. Internet news journalism leaves a lot to be desired...
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 01:58PM

How much of the "value" of illegal drugs derives solely from their being illegal? 75%? Drugs are "Darwin's Little Helpers", and I would like to see them not only legal, but essentially free. All of them. Everywhere. Time to thin the herd, folks.

If anyone over, say, 15, could walk into any Wal-Mart or pharmacy and get as much of any drug they want, you take all the insane profits out of the whole business. The drug cartels would be fucked. There's no point in it, anymore. If you round up 5 million stupid people and gas them to death, you're a "monster", but if you give them the means to do it themselves and then walk away, that's a whole different thing, ain't it?
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 02:31PM

Lotsa merit in those comments FA.

I have long held that a core part of the attraction in drugs is that they ARE illegal, it's somethin to get away with, thumb your nose at the system and all that. If they were legal I don't think they'd have the same appeal or following.

Your point is also correct in that the current cost of ma druggies are inherently tied to the illegal aspect of 'em. Make 'em legal and the price would drop to their knees like a priest in front of a crowd of naked alter boys!

Legalize, 'em, tax the begeebers out of 'em and let the fools take care of themselves. That's a thinning of the herd few of us would likely miss much anyway spinning
smiley sticking its tongue out

smoking
smiley
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 02:36PM

i heard california is considering legalizing and plan to tax $50/once.....there will be an even larger black market as a result. who will pay $200/ounce when they can get it for 100?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 02:37PM

this math requires some common sense, so think hard before you spit. smiling
bouncing smiley
pro_junior Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 04:10PM

$100 an ounce?! shirley you jest...
brokntoad Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 04:52PM

I'd pay $200 plus the $50 tax for a oz.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 05:54PM

Jeez, my 1st lb was only $110 ... but that's been a while rock on

smoking
smiley
brokntoad Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 07:49PM

OH yeah... I should clarify. I meant an OZ of green bud not mexican dirt weed.
brokntoad Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 07:50PM

Oh and fossil, did the woman have a pink shirt on as well?
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 08:22PM

pink shirt? it came from msnbc, i wouldn't be surprised if pink was required there. smiling
bouncing smiley



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17/07/2009 08:24PM by fossil_digger.
brokntoad Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 08:47PM

Are you so used to avoiding serious questions that you automatically avoid stupid ones?
FrostedApe Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 10:32PM

Controlling behavior though punitive taxation is morally repugnant and inherently unjust, the last refuge of scoundrels who wish to control others, but lack the mental acuity to make a sufficiently compelling case. Fascists.
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 10:37PM

Actually it was a seldom seen variation called panama red toad, ever heard of it?

BTW, here's one just for you. Are you really so like your buddy madnez that all you're capable of is nifty lil zingers or is it too much to ask for you to actually connect the few dots floatin around inside your head and formulate real thought, then communicate it in a sane and logical manner in something consisting of more than 2 or 3 sentences?

I'm not tryin to stretch your abilities to the breakin point or anything dude .... just wonderin smiling
bouncing smiley

smoking
smiley
Mrkim Report This Comment
Date: July 17, 2009 10:40PM

I'm guessin that was a bit of sarcasm FA. If not I gotta tellya there's already plenty of that pugnation in circulation. A lil more is just a drop in the bucket comparatively winking
smiley

smoking
smiley
fossil_digger Report This Comment
Date: July 18, 2009 01:06AM

are you going to tell me wtf "pink shirt" is? totally
lost
woberto Report This Comment
Date: July 18, 2009 02:30AM

Last time I smoked I saw this...

Never again...
jgoins Report This Comment
Date: July 19, 2009 07:41AM

Legalizing drugs will not get rid of the drug cartels or the black market for drugs alone. If it was legal and taxed then the drug cartels would merely lower their prices and stay in business. The above poster was correct when he said drugs would have to be free. If they were free then the drug cartels would go out of the drug business for good. Sure legalizing it and taxing it would be good for new revenue for governments but it would not bring as much revenue as would be thought and drug cartels would still be in business. I just wish I could find a black market for my cigarettes, the cost is outrageous right now.