"Sydney house hid major cannabis farm" - SMH (1 Viewer)

[AgentGreeny]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-house-hid-major-cannabis-farm-police-20111011-1lifp.html

So what do you think? Isn't it time we legalised, taxed and regulated this shit?
Hundreds more are getting away with it and the money isn't exactly going to the government right now

 

[Lolsmith]

no we shouldn't tax or regulate it

we shouldn't make it expensive and illegal either

 

[boris]

no drugs cause autism

 

[cosmo kramer]

4 20

get high


for hitler

 

[funkshen]

no we shouldn't tax or regulate it

we shouldn't make it expensive and illegal either

cmon m8 if we have socialised health care we have to tax it.

but on the otherside if we legalise it what will happen to great posts and threads such as above?

 

[LonelyWolf]

legalising weed is fucking retarded and will never happen in australia

 

[kaz1]

legalise it, stoner tourism, $$$, win

 

[cosmo kramer]

dont legalise it

how else will criminals be able to make a fortune off it otherwise

 

[SylviaB]

cmon m8 if we have socialised health care we have to tax it.

cmon mang, if we have unemployment benefits we have to ban it

(not really, but still)

 

[Graney]

cmon m8 if we have socialised health care we have to tax it.

Why does socialised health care mean we have to tax marijuana.

Most recreational football players have brain damage (srs there are studies). Football tax. Rock fishing is the most dangerous sport, injury rate per 1000 hours is much worse than heroin. Rod and reel tax. 1/3 of all health care expenditure is on elderly people in the last year of their lives. Mandatory seizure of the assets of the elderly.

etc

 

[cosmo kramer]

funkshen was making a libertarian joke

hur hur

 

[Graney]

Was he

poe's lawyered again

 

[Crux]

You can't tax it, that's the only reason it is illegal, lol. It is waaayyyy easier to grow marijuana then make cigars or brew alcohol, otherwise a lot more people would be doing that. Since they can't, the government says that they are bad, but won't illegalise it, and instead they tax it so that (officially) people will find it too expensive and wont buy it, while we all really know that they're just making money. In fact, both alcohol and tobacco/cigarettes are much more harmful for you then pure marijuana and obviously makes you feel much better. Not to mention that you wont have as many people pissing in the street or getting in drunk brawls, as weed makes you mellow. So the only obvious reason for the government not legalising it is that everbody will turn away from alcohol and cigs and go to weed, which they can't make money from.

 

[funkshen]

of course we don't have to tax marijuana, and i doubt legalised marijuana would impose a significant burden on any socialiesd healthcare system.

however, equivocating recreational activities (which the state has been reluctant to tax) and pervasive consumption habits, particularly of mind altering chemicals (which the state has been eager to tax) is a blatant fallacy

i must ask you, graney, why do we have sin taxes?


also crux enjoy trying to grow your own top quality marijuana you ghetto motherfucker

 

[cosmo kramer]

my friend grows his own high quality marijuana (he doesnt smoke it only sells it) and makes a fortune from it

legalising marijuana is fucking stupid why ruin such a great source of revenue for criminals who are eager to take the risk

 

[MrTanman]

it would decrease productivity. also we would need to build more psychiatric facilities if so

 

[boris]

it would decrease productivity. also we would need to build more psychiatric facilities if so

no

 

[Graney]

of course we don't have to tax marijuana, and i doubt legalised marijuana would impose a significant burden on any socialiesd healthcare system.

however, equivocating recreational activities (which the state has been reluctant to tax) and pervasive consumption habits, particularly of mind altering chemicals (which the state has been eager to tax) is a blatant fallacy

i must ask you, graney, why do we have sin taxes?

Why is equivocating recreational activities that do not involve consumption of mind alterating chemicals, with recreational activities that do involve consumption of mind alterating chemicals, fallacious?

Every recreational activity involves mind altering chemicals, like football or knitting, or whatever involves mind altering chemicals - seratonin, dopamine, adrenaline etc... affecting judgement, mood, metabolism. I fail to see the difference between manipulating endogenous chemistry and manipulating exogenous chemistry. Any recreational drug simply mimics the effects of existing internal body chemistry, agonises, antagonises or inhibits.
I think it was Sam Harris who said any drug experience you can conceive has probably been experienced by someone who has not taken that drug, because any recreational drug is within normal potential, simply manipulating existing function, dying or dreaming approaches an LSD trip.

I don't know why we have sin taxes

 

[boris]

graney says the stuff i want to say but dont know what i am talking about

 

[funkshen]

Why is equivocating recreational activities that do not involve consumption of mind alterating chemicals, with recreational activities that do involve consumption of mind alterating chemicals, fallacious?

Every recreational activity involves mind altering chemicals, like football or knitting, or whatever involves mind altering chemicals - seratonin, dopamine, adrenaline etc... affecting judgement, mood, metabolism. I fail to see the difference between manipulating endogenous chemistry and manipulating exogenous chemistry. Any recreational drug simply mimics the effects of existing internal body chemistry, agonises, antagonises or inhibits.
I think it was Sam Harris who said any drug experience you can conceive has probably been experienced by someone who has not taken that drug, because any recreational drug is within normal potential, simply manipulating existing function, dying or dreaming approaches an LSD trip.

I don't know why we have sin taxes

my point was not about endogenous and exogenous neurochemistry. that is, of course, true, and is an important fact in challenging the prevailing moral discourse on drug use. but this is clearly not a simple issue of neuroscience, is it? when you compare 50 years of smoking two packs a day with 50 years of knitting two socks a day, there is a clear difference, even though both involved mind altering chemicals. it seems governments/societies/organisations do draw a distinction between consumption of habit forming goods and consumption of leisure, even if it is habitual (i.e. recreation). why? i think it has some thing to do with expectations. the average person is far more alarmed by an avid knitter dying from knitting (unexpected) than someone dying from chain smoking, which was to be expected.

if (the proverbial) you support alcohol, tobacco and other sin taxes, why wouldn't you support a marijuana tax? obviously it depends on what your justification is. it might be that the state is a vehicle for behaviour modification. it might pragmatic - it is simply easier to monitor and tax licit market behaviour than non/minimally market behaviour (recreational activities). perhaps it is also easier to demonstrate the causal relationship between between exogenous mind alteration (through imbibing chemicals) and physical harm, than it is between leisure activities which do not necessarily result in harm, but when they do, are instead attributed to human error or chance. or it might be a good way to line the state's coffers.

a tax on marijuana is a sin tax. this is why i ask why you think we have sin taxes. if the above is correct than a tax on marijuana is perfectly consistent with and to be expected from the state/society's policy framework.