Quote# 91071

You can expect marijuana to be not only legal but subsidized by your tax dollars in the foreseeable future, for the same reason the government subsidizes poverty. A stoned electorate is a compliant electorate.

Dave Blount, Moonbattery 27 Comments [12/2/2012 5:02:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 23
Submitted By: Tiger

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom

Raised by Horses

They're handing out free dog whistles today, you say?

12/2/2012 5:14:49 AM


He's talking from experience, he's on a bad trip for a very long time!

12/2/2012 5:15:45 AM


Yes, because so many people have died from marijuana overdose.

Fuck you.

12/2/2012 6:04:26 AM

Conservative Atheist

You can expect alcohol to be not only legal but subsidized by your tax dollars in the foreseeable future, for the same reason the government subsidizes poverty. A drunk electorate is a compliant electorate.

12/2/2012 6:22:29 AM


Legal marijuana/hemp probably would get agriculture subsidies. We pay farmers to grow just about everything (and in the case of cotton in places where it shouldn't be), except, of course, fruits and vegetables. Somebody has to stand up to "Big Vegetable" and protect "Small Corn" and "Small Sugar."

12/2/2012 6:37:32 AM


Not a user myself but actually pro-legalization. Not only are there hefty tax revenues to reap but patients that require long-term medical care will see leaps and bounds in the quality of their lives.

Considering the standard treatment for sufferers of chronic pain is morphine, a considerably more dangerous substance when abused, and that their treatments simply leave them incoherent and unaware of the world surrounding them thus robbing them of any their lives I find it hard to understand why people still reject and fear marijuana even restricted solely to medicinal applications.

As for subsidies, well that's a long talk with big words and bigger implications that might explode a typical Moonbat's addled brain.

12/2/2012 7:03:21 AM

Doubting Thomas

Making something legal isn't the same as forcing everyone to do it.

12/2/2012 9:07:37 AM


The only problem I see with hemp cultivation is that the damn fibers last forever, so products made from it might last longer than the retail marketers would prefer.

At any rate, I'm more concerned about the pollution caused by indoor pot growers and the pot stands in out national parks and forests.

12/2/2012 9:39:47 AM


Well, at times it SEEMS as if one has to have been stoned to vote for a Republican.

12/2/2012 10:11:24 AM

J. James


Seriously? Okay, corn and sugar I understand, but somebody needs to put a subsidy on goddamn strawberries and raspberries. And melons while they're at it.

Anyway, I support marijuana legalization- not because I want to smoke the stuff, I won't touch that reeking weed as long as I live- but because of the billions we would save on jail sentences, drug enforcement and improved economic productivity.

12/2/2012 10:51:49 AM

Dr. Steve Brule

While I'm against crop subsidization in general, hemp actually wouldn't be a bad choice. While it's not the miracle cure-all solution that hardcore activists suggest that it is, hemp does actually produce a number of products (namely paper) better then their current sources.

I was stoned throughout this last election cycle, it was the only way for me to put up with all of the nonsense screaming out of the right this year. I would have voted for an invasion by Gengas Kahn sooner then vote Republican this year. At least the Mongols had cool hats...

12/2/2012 12:35:31 PM


Sounds good to me.

12/2/2012 1:30:18 PM


@nazani: so? export it, make a profit, prosper. problem?

destigmatizing hemp and dope growth has a hidden advantage that no one has said yet.

weed grows everywhere and needs next to nothing to prosper. whereas cotton guzzles water and takes a hell of a lot of resources, dope grows wild from coasts to the friggin' himalaya to friggin' deserts. as nazani said, it makes for a nigh indestructible fabric (i've got a hemp cap that i've tried to destroy through use... 7 years and counting)

in other words, even hemp makes for bigger profit margins than traditional cash crops. of course, anyone saying this is an evil stoner so republicans and the right wing in general will scorn so called "profits"

12/2/2012 1:56:29 PM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

So sayeth Dave Blount after putting down his sticky VHS copy of "Reefer Madness"...

12/2/2012 3:16:08 PM

Subsidizing poverty? Huh?

12/2/2012 6:59:56 PM

JB Mason

Every time I get all weeded up on the pot and it makes me want socialism! Yay!

12/2/2012 9:52:41 PM


Even if ever, so fucking what.

12/3/2012 4:28:19 AM

J. James

Hold on a sec. "Subsidizing poverty?!" How the flying fuck does that work? Do they take nonexistent monies from the destitute? Or is this some deeply retarded criticism of the so-called "dependency" problem?

12/3/2012 1:38:30 PM



You actually named the reason why farmers quit growing hemp. It grows so much so quickly that (in a free market) the market would get flooded too quickly. Hemp was abandoned by the American farmer because it wasn't profitable enough and foreign suppliers could provide enough of it cheaply.

Don't get me wrong I think that hemp might have some practical applications but I don't buy into the belief that the plant was suppressed by "business interests." What caused hemp production to decline in America was the invisible hand.

@J. James:


1. Corn: $81,732,909,124
2. Wheat: $34,397,010,429
3. Cotton: $32,306,804,808

The only fruit in the top 20 is apples ($261,540,987) and tobacco ($1,329,776,055) gets more subsidies than that. I was, however, wrong about sugar beats.

12/3/2012 4:33:35 PM


"A stoned electorate is a compliant electorate."

So it's still illegal in most of the United States...why, exactly? You conspiracy theorists need to devote a few more brain cells to cause and effect.

12/3/2012 4:38:09 PM


I think we should legalize the stuff, certainly. But the idea a stoned electorate is a compliant electorate seems like it would become Republican weapon of choice.

I see they prefer fear though.

12/3/2012 8:33:11 PM


A stoned electorate is ... one that couldn't be bothered to get off the couch to go vote.

12/4/2012 5:16:31 PM


I may consider your point, Dave, if you can explain how any institution would go about subsidizing poverty.

12/4/2012 8:01:35 PM


I'm trying to figure out what "subsidizing poverty" means. I suppose it means welfare payments. So, by that logic, if there were no welfare payments, there would be no poverty? Because unemployed people would either starve, or get jobs?
But in reality, in that case the unemployed would be divided into two sets of people. Dead people, who had starved to death, and working poor, who would be half-starved.
Unless one grasps the concept that profits come from working people, one is in danger of becoming a moral monster, and believing things like this.

12/5/2012 9:52:47 AM

Table Rock

A stoned electorate is a compliant electorate.

Only if they use Ho-Hos and Sun Chips as leverage.

12/6/2012 1:02:12 PM

1 2 | top: comments page