BillFitzmaurice.info

Bruce Weldy wrote: And let's not even talk about how stoned the country would have to be to wipe out the debt.

And the downside?
Perhaps the greatest expansion of human knowledge occurred in renaissance Europe. What's not commonly known is that Europeans of that era right through the end of the 19th century were perpetually buzzed, because you couldn't drink the water, so beer and wine were drunk at every meal and all day long. That didn't stop them from great accomplishment. It would probably be a good idea that we make it mandatory that members of Congress have snort or two at the start of every daily session. Maybe then they could get something done.

What your calcs don't account for is the cost of the 'war on drugs', from the fields where it's grown to the overflowing prisons and all points in between.
Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate weed or hash. I grew up in the 60s, so of course I've had both, but neither appealed to me as much as a Jack Daniels and a Marlboro, so I don't partake. And even if legalization doesn't cure all our financial woes it would still at least plug one bottomless money pit sucking up our tax dollars.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote: If you legalize weed and hash and sell it with no more restriction than tobacco you can tax it and make a profit, rather than spend tax monies enforcing virtually unenforceable laws, and paying for the room and board for those who do get convicted. If we did so the deficit would be gone in no time, and we would have enough tax surplus to fund entitlement programs that would make yours look stingy by comparison. Just like prostitution people are going to do what they're going to do. You'd think our ill fated experiment with Prohibition would have been an adequate wake-up call; at least some of our States are now beginning to see the light. I'm not so certain what we should do vis-a-vis harder drugs, but for sure what we're doing now doesn't work.

+1ish... IMO moreso alcohol restrictions would be better, except age. That needs to be fixed too, I mean at 18 you can join up and die for the US, get married, go to prison, but can't get a drink in most states....really? Does that seem right?

IMO legalize it all. If people are going to do hard drugs they will or won't on their own account rather than laws. Everyone is an addict to something (I am talking to you speaker building addicts too ), it is just what it is and how you control it. It should be strictly monitored though and much of the taxes put towards treatment. If you can buy meth from a dude on a corner or from a "pharmacy" which would you do? I don't buy bootleg booze cause there is no market for it (since prohibition) nor would I trust Frank's Bathtub Gin to save a buck. Or are we as a society so crazy we wouldn't be able to handle ourselves if the government says its not my business what you do as long as your hurting others.

At our little county jail that sleeps 50 inmates 75% are incarcerated for drug charges. Of them more than 60% are cannabis charges. If we could legalize cannabis in our state I have no doubt that our crime rate would go down but also our county budget will go up to maintain things in need of repair. Roads,bridges,utility's,Ect.

I guess I look at it like this. If people are willing to paying high taxes on booze and smokes than they would have no problems paying the high tax on weed either.

Lets face it people are lazy. They would rather buy there weed than grow there own even with the high tax on such an item. When was the last time you saw someone grow there own tobacco because a pack of Marlboro's cost to much or brewed there own Crown Royal because a half gallon was $56 ?

And no I do not smoke weed before anyone ask. I did quite a lot in the past but it just did not do it for me. Like it was said above I would rather just have myself a nice glass of Crown on the rocks than a hog leg to smoke.

A bit similar here. I have smoked tobacco for a few years, until I thought I smoked so much it might kill me early. Then I stopped. That is well over 20 years ago. Haven't smoked anything since. No tobacco, nor any other substances for that matter. Some people think everybody over here lives in windmills, wears wooden shoes, has a garden full of tulips. And smokes pot all day. No such things for the vast majority of people here. Like just about every other country in the world we have our share of drug related problems. But quite a bit less than many other countries. And that's mostly because we do not make such a fuss about it.

AntonZ wrote:A bit similar here. I have smoked tobacco for a few years, until I thought I smoked so much it might kill me early. Then I stopped. That is well over 20 years ago. Haven't smoked anything since. No tobacco, nor any other substances for that matter. Some people think everybody over here lives in windmills, wears wooden shoes, has a garden full of tulips. And smokes pot all day. No such things for the vast majority of people here. Like just about every other country in the world we have our share of drug related problems. But quite a bit less than many other countries. And that's mostly because we do not make such a fuss about it.

Not everyone wears wooden shoes, lives in windmills, or grows tulips? I have a hard time believing that.

You should see our tv stands.

AntonZ wrote:Some people think everybody over here lives in windmills, wears wooden shoes, has a garden full of tulips. And smokes pot all day.

Dream killer

AntonZ wrote: No such things for the vast majority of people here. Like just about every other country in the world we have our share of drug related problems. But quite a bit less than many other countries. And that's mostly because we do not make such a fuss about it.

So people are responsible even though it isn't entirely illegal. Blasphamey!

Actually if everyone were crazy if more stuff was legal, it could be a modern form of Darwinism.

Here is a quote to live by -"everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial."

Now, if everyone could just be smart enough to realize when something is not benedficial to one's self or to society.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:Have you ever read the 2nd Amendment?

Why, yes I have. I actually have copies of the Constitution, all it's amendments, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

While it's OK for us to differ, it says "the right of the people"

"2nd Amendment as passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Both ways state that a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, not people in the militia, or people who must serve in the militia, just "the people". "We, the People of the United States of America..." is taken from the Declaration of Independence, and the "People" referred to in documents afterward, including the amendments, were meant as "The People of the United States of America".

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote:So while I have no issue with gun ownership...I have three... if you're going to adhere to the 2nd Amendment per its original intent owing a gun means you're ready, willing and able to be called up to active duty.

I have served my country, and will again, even from my death bed if need be. I have no issue defending this country, and her people, with my life. I swore that oath 30 years ago, and I am a man of my word. But, I am not the one with a problem with the 2nd Amendment. There are certain elected officials who wish to infringe upon and remove, any right. We must stand up for our rights. These rights are being slowly stripped away from us, under the guise of being for our own good.

I am against the notion of being controlled, but in the end, people believing they have rights is where many problems start: i.e. that's my land, or I can play music as loud as i like.

Charles Jenkinson wrote:I am against the notion of being controlled, but in the end, people believing they have rights is where many problems start: i.e. that's my land, or I can play music as loud as i like.

Who was it that said, "The right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."?

AntonZ wrote: Some people think everybody over here lives in windmills, wears wooden shoes, has a garden full of tulips. .

Yep, and we also think all your women look like this.

Harley wrote:

AntonZ wrote: Some people think everybody over here lives in windmills, wears wooden shoes, has a garden full of tulips. .

Yep, and we also think all your women look like this.

They don't. Man you guys are gonna make me cry. Next your gonna tell me they don't farther and pull the blankets over the war office and call it an oven, or dutch oven here.

DJPhatman wrote:There are certain elected officials who wish to infringe upon and remove, any right. We must stand up for our rights. These rights are being slowly stripped away from us, under the guise of being for our own good.

That's right wing propaganda. Want to know the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Hitler? Hitler had a mustache.
Not that there aren't left-wing screwballs and propagandists either, but lucky for us neither the extreme left or right see their ideas put into law. The vast majority of those of us taking the middle ground have no interest in seeing the 2nd Amendment repealed. But we also don't see the need for private citizens to own military weaponry, unless of course said military weaponry is the same as existed in 1791: Flintlock muskets.
My shotgun only holds five rounds, my pistol and rifle ten each. If I can't do what I need to do with those magazines I don't deserve to own a gun, though truth be told the one in the chamber has always been all I needed.

Bill Fitzmaurice wrote: But we also don't see the need for private citizens to own military weaponry.

???

Not sure what you mean by military weaponry. Semi-auto? Assault rifles? Bazookas?

There has been this hue and cry over banning assault rifles....an assault rifle is simply a semi-auto that is dressed up to look like military.

The first deer I killed was in 1965 with my father's Remmington 6mm deer rifle...it was semi-auto. The "assault" weapons of today are exactly the same as that deer rifle that was built in the 1960s. There is nothing military about it (you can get a bigger clip capacity today). In fact, I still own my grandfather's Remmington .244 semi-auto rifle that was bought brand new in the late 50s.....pretty rare as they were only made a couple of years and were replaced by the 6mm.

Fully-auto weapons are illegal. I've not heard Rush Limbaugh or anyone else for that matter suggesting that they be made legal for citizens to own.

Seems to me the only thing that needs to be banned is the rhetoric, so that truth might actually see the light of day.

That's right wing propaganda. Want to know the difference between Rush Limbaugh and Hitler? Hitler had a mustache.

I'd be interested to hear any possible example of political ideology upon which the two would agree.

Hitler controlled the private sector, Limbaugh wants government out of business. Hitler hated the Jews, Limbaugh supports Israel. Hitler controlled the schools, Limbaugh wants government out of the schools.

Sounds to me like there is another political persuasion that more identifies with Hitler's political and economic ideas than Rush Limbaugh.

Yeah, I know that as a conservative that I'm in the small minority on the forum and I prefer not to have political discussions here, but sometimes I just gotta' spit it out. Regardless of political persuasion, we should all search for the truth to further our agenda and argue our philosophies with reason and facts.......even if Obama is a big, fat, poopy-face (didn't want you to think I was getting too serious here).