White House Response to The New York Times Editorial Board's Call for Federal Marijuana Legalization

[NLXSK1]

"I am saying that perhaps people who study weed smokers for a living have a better idea than the weed smokers themselves. Objectivity and all."

And we are saying that those people are hardly objective when they earn a living off their defined addictions.

I smoke pot, it is not physically addictive, I speak from direct personal experience, not as some 3rd party hack who's paycheck is involved in the issue.

 

[SmokeyDan]

so youre suggesting that i dont study weed, and instead i should take the advice of the govt functionaries who insist there is only ONE species of cannabis on the earth, and it's dope, or that "Marijuana cigarettes" will make darkies think they are as good as the white man, or one puff on a marijuana joint will drive me to suicide and make my girlfriend prostitute herself to pay her dope pusher, segvicing all manner of pimps, various negroes, and sinister jazz musicians?

and even though "addiction specialists" and their "addict" converts call EVERYTHING "addictive", we should take their word for it anyhow?

why am i "hostile"?

because you are selling a bullshit agenda, because you think lies sound more believable than the truth, and because youre simply full of shit.

i am not adding anything to your arguments, you have taken the position of the government, repeat their propaganda, and insist that they are the source authority on weed, so you get to drag around the baggage they have created with their half century of horseshit, lies and deceptions.

if you had a point that didnt come straight from the ONDCP, i cant spot it, so you have earned my hostility.

I've never even heard of the ONDCP.

My points come from reading and observing.

 

[SmokeyDan]

"I am saying that perhaps people who study weed smokers for a living have a better idea than the weed smokers themselves. Objectivity and all."

And we are saying that those people are hardly objective when they earn a living off their defined addictions.

I smoke pot, it is not physically addictive, I speak from direct personal experience, not as some 3rd party hack who's paycheck is involved in the issue.

There is no such thing as physical addiction. Addiction is all mental/psychological.

What your calling physical addiction is chemical dependence and is not addiction.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Our tax laws are simply rigged in favor of rich and megacorps- who of course have the money to pay to rub it in their favor.

That does not make it right.

Every country has the right to exact reasonable taxes for its operation and defense- and to tell companies that simply don't want to pay that they may not do business here.

To argue that we can't charge enough taxes is unpatriotic and supports the scam we're all suffering for. I'm not suggesting that's your aim, I'm pointing out that supporting the country that gives you a strong, stable market and a good workforce deserves companies that pay for these privileges. NO ONE gets a break, especially not the richest- but that's exactly the situation we've accepted in this country since the Reagan administration!

if you think thats how economics works, then im glad youre just a stoner.

 

[Red1966]

International Journal of Cancer disagrees.

http://blog.norml.org/2014/06/23/study-habitual-marijuana-smoking-not-associated-with-increased-risk-of-lung-cancer/

Smoking 20 joints a day is bound to be hard on your lungs, but who smokes 20 joints a day?

 

[Dr Kynes]

I've never even heard of the ONDCP.

My points come from reading and observing.

riiiiight.

the Office Of National Drug Control Policy...

youve never heard of them.

but you read and observe so effectively that you can pontificate on the addictive properties of cannabis and the "brain chemistry" of addiction.

 

[SmokeyDan]

When you use the words, I've heard of them. But the letters didn't ring a bell.

I am familiar with addiction through familial experience.

 

[SmokeyDan]

You don't even know the difference between dependence and addiction.

 

[Dr Kynes]

You don't even know the difference between dependence and addiction.

delusional poster is delusional.

 

[ttystikk]

Taxes are way too fucking low.

There are many who pay nothing. I don't want to fleece the poor and lower middle, but everyone ought to pay something. Ten percent of a poor persons income should go to tax. They could choose to pay it to the government or tithe to a religious organization. But everyone ought to pay 10 percent.

America became an economic powerhouse with over 70 percent top marginal rates.

Making 50 million dollars per year should be nearly impossible under a proper tax system.

Well, not exactly... it shouldn't be any harder to earn fifty million dollars, but it should be a lot harder to cheat your countrymen out of their fair share.

A flat tax is 'regressive', that is, it hits and hurts the poor disproportionately more than the rich. How? Ten percent from your one and only thousand bucks of income hurts a lot more than five thousand of your first fifty grand, because of the lack of cushion between the bills that must be paid and discretionary income.

I say no one- not even a zillionaire- pays tax on their first ten thousand in yearly income.

Pay five percent on the next ten grand.

Pay ten percent on the next twenty.

Pay fifteen on the next sixty.

Pay twenty five on the next hundred and fifty.

Pay dirty on the next two hundred and fifty.

Pay fifty percent for every fucking dime earned over a quarter million a year.

Fees; those imposed by the state for anything involving access, paperwork or services are regressive taxes by a perniciously innocuous name.

Drivers licenses must be free, as should the vast majority of all other government fees. We pay taxes to support our government, this means in return they may not nickel and dime the poor.

The point is to float the economic boats of those who have the least leverage and raise the tide of the ENTIRE economy, as opposed to the current state of affairs where the top ten percent of all income earners in America now earn over half of all the income.

It's well past unfair, unreasonable, unsupportable- because it's now supported by smoke, stupid greed instead of reason. They're justly terrified of the day we figure it out.

 

[NLXSK1]

When you use the words, I've heard of them. But the letters didn't ring a bell.

I am familiar with addiction through familial experience.

I got my PHD through familial experience.

Why are you qualified yet the rest of us are not? LOL!!!

 

[SmokeyDan]

Well, not exactly... it shouldn't be any harder to earn fifty million dollars, but it should be a lot harder to cheat your countrymen out of their fair share.

A flat tax is 'regressive', that is, it hits and hurts the poor disproportionately more than the rich. How? Ten percent from your one and only thousand bucks of income hurts a lot more than five thousand of your first fifty grand, because of the lack of cushion between the bills that must be paid and discretionary income.

I say no one- not even a zillionaire- pays tax on their first ten thousand in yearly income.

Pay five percent on the next ten grand.

Pay ten percent on the next twenty.

Pay fifteen on the next sixty.

Pay twenty five on the next hundred and fifty.

Pay dirty on the next two hundred and fifty.

Pay fifty percent for every fucking dime earned over a quarter million a year.

Fees; those imposed by the state for anything involving access, paperwork or services are regressive taxes by a perniciously innocuous name.

Drivers licenses must be free, as should the vast majority of all other government fees. We pay taxes to support our government, this means in return they may not nickel and dime the poor.

The point is to float the economic boats of those who have the least leverage and raise the tide of the ENTIRE economy, as opposed to the current state of affairs where the top ten percent of all income earners in America now earn over half of all the income.

It's well past unfair, unreasonable, unsupportable- because it's now supported by smoke, stupid greed instead of reason. They're justly terrified of the day we figure it out.

What you propose is how we do it now, the two exceptions are that our current percentage rates for income earned is different from your proposal. Also we have a host of credits and deductions that complicate things.

A graduated income tax is not my first choice, but what makes ours so fucked up is all those deductions and loop holes.

I would have the 50% rate a little higher, 250k isn't as much as it sounds. We're all middle class until a certain point closer to 1 million. The more money you make, the more you spend, and a family making 80k has most of the same stuff the 250k family has, the difference is a 60 thousand dollar car instead of a 20 thousand dollar one, so on and so fourth.

All this tax is from the federal government, those fees you mention are from state and local. They need to be funded too.

Europe uses a VAT tax. I like consumption taxes. I live in a state that has no income and only sales taxes. We do have a form of capital gains tax. But you control how much tax you pay.

There is a consumption tax plan out there that is very well done. I like it. It has no chance because most people can't seem to understand it and most people are scared of it for something that isn't applicable to it. For instance, I know a guy that don't like it because it eliminates the mortgage interest deduction. He can't fathom there will be no income tax to deduct from. Our current system is so ingrained that people can't think outside of it.

 

[SmokeyDan]

I got my PHD through familial experience.

Why are you qualified yet the rest of us are not? LOL!!!

My brother is an addict. We have gone to rehab with him and met with his counselors. I've read dozens of books about addiction and the like. Been to countless AlAnon meetings. I'm well versed.

If you're arguing that something is not addictive, but concede that it might form a psychological addiction, you clearly don't know what the words mean. Addiction is all between the ears.

You probably think it's not that bad for a heroin addict to do cocaine because they're not addicted to cocaine. Addiction is a disease, it doesn't matter what substance you form it with. You are an addict for the rest of your life and can never have a healthy relationship with any substance that is mood altering again.

My mom basically relapsed my brother by insisting he drink a glass of wine. He had done well for a few months, and he was off and running after that.

She didn't understand why. You probably don't either, it's ok, neither does Dr.K.

 

[NLXSK1]

My brother is an addict. We have gone to rehab with him and met with his counselors. I've read dozens of books about addiction and the like. Been to countless AlAnon meetings. I'm well versed.

If you're arguing that something is not addictive, but concede that it might form a psychological addiction, you clearly don't know what the words mean. Addiction is all between the ears.

You probably think it's not that bad for a heroin addict to do cocaine because they're not addicted to cocaine. Addiction is a disease, it doesn't matter what substance you form it with. You are an addict for the rest of your life and can never have a healthy relationship with any substance that is mood altering again.

My mom basically relapsed my brother by insisting he drink a glass of wine. He had done well for a few months, and he was off and running after that.

She didn't understand why. You probably don't either, it's ok, neither does Dr.K.

You tout your personal experiences but then dismiss mine. It is a completely hypocritical position that you are taking.

My mother was an alcoholic, my father was an alcoholic, I was an alcoholic. My mother drank herself into insanity and death through alcohol. My BIL's brother is a lifetime alcoholic who is homeless half the time.

There is physical addiction and there is psychological addiction. People have been separating them for you through this whole discussion yet you refuse to understand the difference. You come up with new terms like chemical dependence (which is physical addiction) to attempt to prove a point that is simply wrong.

POT IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE!!!!! THERE IS NO CHEMICAL DEPENDENCE!!!!!

ALCOHOL, HEROIN, CAFFEIN, ARE PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE!!!

If you want to argue degrees then fine but marijuana is not in that category. It has been proven scientifically.

Now if you are trying to prove you have more experience than others here dealing with addiction and family members with addictions then you are gonna lose that argument too...

You are buying into propaganda put out there by people who want to make money off your addicted brother and his enabling family...

 

[ttystikk]

What you propose is how we do it now, the two exceptions are that our current percentage rates for income earned is different from your proposal. Also we have a host of credits and deductions that complicate things.

A graduated income tax is not my first choice, but what makes ours so fucked up is all those deductions and loop holes.

I would have the 50% rate a little higher, 250k isn't as much as it sounds. We're all middle class until a certain point closer to 1 million. The more money you make, the more you spend, and a family making 80k has most of the same stuff the 250k family has, the difference is a 60 thousand dollar car instead of a 20 thousand dollar one, so on and so fourth.

All this tax is from the federal government, those fees you mention are from state and local. They need to be funded too.

Europe uses a VAT tax. I like consumption taxes. I live in a state that has no income and only sales taxes. We do have a form of capital gains tax. But you control how much tax you pay.

There is a consumption tax plan out there that is very well done. I like it. It has no chance because most people can't seem to understand it and most people are scared of it for something that isn't applicable to it. For instance, I know a guy that don't like it because it eliminates the mortgage interest deduction. He can't fathom there will be no income tax to deduct from. Our current system is so ingrained that people can't think outside of it.

EXACTLY. Only once in a generation or less does the opportunity arise to truly alter the basic assumptions- that is, to convince enough of the people that A. an alternative exists B. it's better than what we have and C. that it's rightfully ours.

If now isn't such a time, when is?

 

[NLXSK1]

EXACTLY. Only once in a generation or less does the opportunity arise to truly alter the basic assumptions- that is, to convince enough of the people that A. an alternative exists B. it's better than what we have and C. that it's rightfully ours.

If now isn't such a time, when is?

I prefer a much simpler system. A 10-20% flat sales tax across the board on all products. The congress would only have the ability to lower the tax on items, not raise it. So if they wanted basic food items and medical care to be tax free they could do that.

It is much more *fair* than the current system, it does not require you to file ANY paperwork nor justify your income to the government.

Poor people use more of the government resources than rich people do so it is better than a regressive tax system.

If you really want to change it, really change it, dont just fiddle with the knobs.

 

[SmokeyDan]

You tout your personal experiences but then dismiss mine. It is a completely hypocritical position that you are taking.

My mother was an alcoholic, my father was an alcoholic, I was an alcoholic. My mother drank herself into insanity and death through alcohol. My BIL's brother is a lifetime alcoholic who is homeless half the time.

There is physical addiction and there is psychological addiction. People have been separating them for you through this whole discussion yet you refuse to understand the difference. You come up with new terms like chemical dependence (which is physical addiction) to attempt to prove a point that is simply wrong.

POT IS NOT PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE!!!!! THERE IS NO CHEMICAL DEPENDENCE!!!!!

ALCOHOL, HEROIN, CAFFEIN, ARE PHYSICALLY ADDICTIVE!!!

If you want to argue degrees then fine but marijuana is not in that category. It has been proven scientifically.

Now if you are trying to prove you have more experience than others here dealing with addiction and family members with addictions then you are gonna lose that argument too...

You are buying into propaganda put out there by people who want to make money off your addicted brother and his enabling family...

You discount your own experience when you say you "WAS" an alcoholic.

My dear friend, you still are and will be until you die.

You seem to contemplate your alcoholism as the period in which you were drinking, and the few days thereafter when you experienced alcohol withdrawal, if it got that bad.

I'm happy for you if you're still sober.

If you read the big book you don't remember much of what it taught you.

For the umpteenth time, physical addiction is a misnomer and not at all indicative of what addiction is. What you call physical addiction is chemical dependence and i agree with you, it is borderline insignificant in marijuana.

But just because you don't get violently ill when you stop weed after extended heavy use has no bearing on addiction.

 

[Doer]

An addict and addiction are two different things. You are trying to superimpose addictive personality disorder to explain away physical addiction.

Have you been addicted to heroin, yourself. No? So. You don't know. I have so I do know.

 

[IRON-EYES]

I'm proudly addicted to herb not coffee not sex not sugar not processd foods not shelter

 

[IRON-EYES]

Happily livd on the streets oft with nothin but weed n my pack