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.
27 comments
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.
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."
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.
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.
@jsonistac
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.
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...
@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"
@\m/>_<\m/
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:
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.