/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.1987799]

Refreshed 2 times, looked through pages 0-3, no pot thread on prop 19 day.

Hence: Prop 19 discussion, go
Also pot thread general

[Anonymous No.1987805]

Never smoked it, not relevant to me.

[Anonymous No.1987808]

>>1987805
What's your opinion on the prop though? Even if you don't smoke it it can still affect you in the sense that the taxes will probably make Calis economy a bit more stable etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.1987811]

>>1987808
Don't live in California, not relevant to me.

[Anonymous No.1987813]

>>1987811
Think hypothetical then, or do you just not care?

[sage No.1987818]

I cant wait to go be a calipot tourist this summer

[Anonymous No.1987820]

>>1987818
Using sage wrong dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.1987821]

>>>/new/

[Anonymous No.1987822]

>>1987808

If you live in the US, it's relevant to you. It directly affects your state's economic stability by virtue of the fact that it affects the entire nation's. Prop 19 would bring in billions in revenue, as well as potentially legalizing an important cash crop that can be used as a quickly renewable paper and fuel source.

[Anonymous No.1987835]

>>1987822
Exactly, so I presume you argue that the positive outweighs the negative?

[Anonymous No.1987837]

>>1987822
> bring in billions in revenue
So it goes from drug dealers to the tax collector. That's economically neutral.

[Anonymous No.1987838]

But stoners are stupid and unmotivated. It could very well end up costing huge amounts to the economy.

[Anonymous No.1987860]

>>1987838
>But stoners are stupid and unmotivated. It could very well end up costing huge amounts to the economy.
>But stoners are stupid and unmotivated.
>It could very well end up costing huge amounts to the economy.
1) way to make sweeping generalizations
2)how are these 2 statements relevant to each other?

[Anonymous No.1987863]

>>1987838
It would not, since the drug trade is so poorly regulated we're already paying whatever penalty, and then some.

[Anonymous No.1987866]

>>1987860
Not, him, but the greater the percentage of the population is unmotivated, the worse the economy suffers.

[Anonymous No.1987877]

>>1987866
as opposed to wasting tax dollars to lock them up for having a plant in their pocket

[Anonymous No.1987905]

>>1987877
A government's budget is not the economy. The legality of marijuana is a different matter than the types of punishments met out for breaking the law.

[Anonymous No.1987911]

>>1987905
I don't think you understand economics if you think people in jail don't matter.

[Anonymous No.1987912]

The drug war directly funds various forms of South American "terrorism" as well as placing the money in the hands of the urban drug dealers and gangs. Their largest cash crop is marijuanna, if this is allowed to be legalized then over 60% of the urban gang's revenue will be eliminated over time, and instead go directly to funding parks, street lights, libraries and other public goods. The way the drug war stands right now- everything is being controlled by and funneled into people who are, by definition, criminals.

THAT BEING SAID there is no reason for drugs to be abolished. The drug war is a result of old-world racism, faulty core values and political corruption.

But, this is the math and science board. If you stopped smoking pot for ten seconds you might notice that you fucking stoner.

[Anonymous No.1987915]

Watch the bill will pass and California will have a surplus budget in a matter one 1 year. Tourism will fucking EXPLODE.

[Anonymous No.1987920]

>>1987905

Econfag here.

GDP = C+I+G+NX

Where C = consumption, I = Investment, G = Government, NX = Net exports.

Government is a variable in determination of GDP and it is a very real influence on the economy.

Another thing I would like to mention- "stupid and unmotivated?" If all you know about drugs is what you've learned from "Cheech and Chong" and your sixth grade health class, then you still have quite a bit to learn about drugs before you start making judgement calls on this shit.

[Anonymous No.1987922]

ATTENTION POTHEADS:
If weed is legalized, you will have nothing to talk about anymore. You'll hang out with your friends in awkward silence and eventually you'll realise you might as well stay home. You'll end up depressed and lonely.
If that wasn't bad enough, wait until you understand that you are no longer edgy. You're not a rebel anymore. You'll lose your whole identity.

[Anonymous No.1987924]

>>1987915
There are federal drug laws. You can still get busted no matter what the CA law says.

[Anonymous No.1987930]

>>1987920
Government is a very small portion of the economy. Especially state governments.

[Anonymous No.1987932]

>>1987915
If it passes there will be a political shitstorm the likes of which you won't believe. Congress' ability to regulate trade between the states has been *the* number one legal justification for the war on drugs.

I hope it passes. Personally I hate pot and find potheads to be extremely irritating people, but the war on drugs is a travesty in an ostensibly free society and I want it to crumble.

[Anonymous No.1987939]

>>1987922

I'm not really a pothead. I'm an adult economics major who works as a day-trader. My life at work and my social life are entirely different from when I'm alone, smoking weed and playing Team Fortress 2 (which I do on Friday night.) I exercise almost every day, I have a good career and I do what I can to improve myself. If I want to smoke a joint every now and again it's none of your fucking business.

Niggerfaggot.

[Anonymous No.1987940]

>>1987922
This only applies to those idiots who treat the drug as a fucking lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.1987945]

Passing this is just one step to proving that people are becoming smarter and no just eating the shit the Reagan's of the country spit at them.

[Anonymous No.1987947]

>>1987930

Are you really going to say that to me?

That government is a small portion of the economy?

Do you REALLY believe that?

[Anonymous No.1987950]

>>1987945
Doesn't explain the relative popularity of republicans, though.

[Anonymous No.1987952]

>>1987947
Are you fucking retarded?

[Anonymous No.1987958]

>>1987950
Well that is simply because we are still one generation away from religious fundamentalism being less prolific.

[Anonymous No.1987960]

>>1987945

Reagan did do the "war on drugs" but he also started "the war on errybody." Neo-con theory is based on the fact that in order for a nation to truly function there needs to be an enemy or a threat. Without war the people get sedentary and (generally) lazy. This is true to a large degree and has been observed. The only issue with a lot of this theory is that if you get someone involved in a cause they don't believe in, they're not going to be motivated to support you. Reagan had HUGE support at the start of the drug war because hippies are annoying as fuck. They're always upper-middle-class white kids with trust funds and stupid degrees.

Anyways, Reagan did a great job in a lot of his policies, but this one is a dated one and it's annoying as fuck.

Also, this bill won't pass. It just won't.

[Anonymous No.1987967]

>>1987947
CA government is 12% of the CA GDP. Now get back to class.

[Anonymous No.1987969]

>>1987960
Wars are the only way you can sustain an economy like capitalism when your country has limited resources. "If you need it and don't have it, kill them and take it."

[Anonymous No.1987970]

>>1987958
why do you think that?

[Anonymous No.1987976]

>>1987958
I hope you are right, but I doubt it. Thanks to the financial wizards in charge of the banking system, poverty has and will continue to increase, and poverty's correlation to religious belief is well-documented.

[Anonymous No.1987977]

>>1987969
lol moron. No economy has been sustained by war spoils since Napoleon.

[Anonymous No.1987979]

>>1987969
That makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.1987984]

>>1987967

12% is still going to be a pretty large portion, budday. 12% of ALL OF OUR FUCKING GDP is not a small amount.

[Anonymous No.1987986]

>>1987977
You might want to go review your U.S history then. EVERY time our economy takes a shit we end up in a war, which stimulates the economy.

[Anonymous No.1987993]

>>1987977
>>1987979

Yea man we just went over to Iraq because we were the nice guys on the block. Got to fucking help those rag-heads man they are oppressed. Resources has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.1988007]

>>1987993
Oh I forgot. We're there to steal oil. Turn off the MSNBC, son.

[Anonymous No.1988015]

>>1987986
That's a wildly ignorant statement. War does not stimulate economy. Some people try to claim that WWII got the US out of the depression, but the evidence is against it. It gave the illusion because people's lives were put on hold, just as the economy was pulling out.

[Anonymous No.1988016]

>>1988007
It is pretty obvious why we went over there for anyone with a brain cell.

>I can't think of any reason why we would want to have our military stationed in the middle east right next to all that juicy black shit.

[Anonymous No.1988019]

>>1988016
Typically, the more "obviousl" someone thinks something is, the less they've thought about it or investigated it.

[Anonymous No.1988028]

Why the fuck is everyone on this board so stupid when it comes to the actual mechanism that allows capitalism to work? Is it just that they have been brainwashed into thinking it is a flawless system so they will defend its principals at any cost?

You fuckers need to get a real education if you think capitalism is going to work much longer. All that is happening now is the guys at the top are grabbing what little is left so they have something to hold them over when the entire system falls on its ass. Take your supposed economics knowledge and apply it to the history of the United States and you will see that eventually the system has to collapse. You can not perpetuate a fucking economic system like capitalism forever.....it just doesn't work.

[Anonymous No.1988033]

>>1988028
lmao... where did you get your education? youtube?

[Anonymous No.1988035]

We're in the middle east because in the 1970's there was a CIA operation called "Ajax" in which a guy by the name of Kermit Roosevelt was instated to overthrow the current head of Iran named "mossedegh" and replace him with the west-friendly Khommeini, who was a religious leader at the time. When Kermit arrived at the mid-east he began recruiting gangs to help overthrow the leader.

Later on, we'd have operation Desert Storm and Shield to take surrounding areas and instate governments that were more friendly to western trading. Eventually, we needed to return in The War on Terror.

Basically, We put a guy in office because he was west-friendly, when he observed us going to war with surrounding countries, he got significantly less friendly. Every country since then has been focused on keeping us out. A lot of countries go to war over oil (It's why Japan bombed pearl harbor.)

We're not there to liberate anyone. Quit being a stupid fuck.

[Anonymous No.1988036]

the war argument is just false, if that is the case, then why not just keep doing wars? same as the fact that a nation can gain by getting its industies destroyed, giving way to new ones. if that is the case, why did all the countries that didnt get their destroyed lead in produced products?

[Anonymous No.1988038]

>10% unemployment
>Millions of foreclosed homes in the past couple of years
>Highest national debt in history


Guys guys everything is fine. Don't worry about those "numbers" just keep buying our stuff.

[Anonymous No.1988040]

>>1988028
Capitalism essentially entails the regulated open exchange of different forms of wealth. It's one of a very few systems in the small sets of systems that are sustainable system over any long term. All sustainable systems depend on stimulating productivity, which capitalism does.

[Anonymous No.1988044]

>>1988036
Yep, in almost all cases wars destroy economies. The US fared pretty well in WWII since almost none of it was fought on its own soil, and it was set for a boom going into it.

[Anonymous No.1988046]

>>1988038

We've observed pretty much all of these numbers before. The national debt is a result of inflation and is a nominal value. That being said, capitalism lives on. Sucks to be middle class, huh? Keep listening to your Boston Hardcore and The Casualties, faggot.

[Anonymous No.1988048]

>>1988035
Yea when Saddam told the U.N he would no longer be trading his oil in U.S dollars that pretty much sealed the deal.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

[Anonymous No.1988049]

>>1988035
I don't recall

[Anonymous No.1988057]

>>1988046
The only way for the inflation to come down is to let the system crash. If you keep using stimulus you either increase the inflation or you just stagnate it.

[Anonymous No.1988058]

>>1987920
i see what you did there

and smoked a big spliff to it

[Anonymous No.1988059]

>>1988028
While i agree with you that capitalism is unsustainable in general, it will stay for longer than you think. What will dissipate is liberal democratic capitalism.

One good thing that could be said of capitalism was that eventually it always lead to democracy, but with the rise of "capitalism with Asian values" (authoritarian capitalism) democracy and freedom are being decoupled from a capitalism even more dynamic than western liberal capitalism.

[Anonymous No.1988061]

>>1988048
Well, at least this is in a pot thread.

[Anonymous No.1988073]

>>1988057
The Fed is currently trying to increase inflation because of deflation risks. The confusing part is the difference between the value of the dollar in terms of US goods and services and the value of the dollar in terms of other currencies. The dollar has been over valued versus other currencies, because it is used as the global currency. But that is changing, so the dollar is falling versus other currencies. At the same time, we are fighting recessions, which includes the risk of the dollar rising versus US goods and services... which risks depression. So the fed is trying to devalue the dollar by buying debt, increasing the money supply.

Stimulus is something else. It's borrowing more money to pay for shit we can't afford hoping it helps the economy. It's a real dumb-ass move.

[Anonymous No.1988078]

>>1988059
>capitalism is unsustainable in general,
That doesn't even make sense. Capitalism means people are free to trade and make money for themselves. How could that possibly be unsustainable?

>One good thing that could be said of capitalism was that eventually it always lead to democracy
Why is democracy a good thing?

[Anonymous No.1988094]

Have no idea what you guys are talking about but remember this kids: Smoke weed errday!

Pic related: Coolest flag ever.

[Anonymous No.1988104]

>>1988078
Where does the money come from? How do they get it? They get the money from the government. The government is the only entity that can "make" money.

How do they make it? They just fucking print it. They print a certain amount and give it to the banks. The banks then give that money to people and charge the people money for getting that money. How do the people pay the extra money for the money they got? They get more money from the bank and pay more money for the money.

Explain to me how this system would be sustainable?

[Anonymous No.1988107]

>>1988078
I suggest you try to make your own money and see what happens. I believe it is called counterfeiting? Is that what it is called guys?

[Anonymous No.1988157]

>>1988104

*sigh* I knew I was gonna have to explain this shit.

The Federal reserve has something known as a "reserve ratio" which is a ratio of money that needs to be held in place of real money. That means that if a bank has 100 dollars then they can only loan out 90 dollars of it (assuming the reserve ratio is 10%) That means, essentially, that the next person who gets that 90 dollars they loan out is going to check it in at another bank, which means they only need to physically keep 9 dollars of it. This means that the person who's "keeping" their 100 dollars at the bank still has it, but the bank is still loaning out 90 dollars. So in the system there is 190 total so far. The person borrowing the 90 dollars is keeping it in a new bank under the RR% (reserve ratio) and they need to keep 10% of the $90 or $9. This means 81 dollars is loaned out under this $90.

This continues until there's no more money. That's how money is made. They don't just "print it out" and just fucking give it to people on wall street. They also regulate it by buying and selling bonds.

Capitalism works. U MAD COMMIE-FAG?

[Anonymous No.1988163]

>>1988078
>Capitalism means people are free to trade and make money for themselves

That's what "markets" are, not capitalism. Capitalism is a system that uses markets towards specific ends.

Markets aren't inherently unsustainable and will always be with us so long someone has a commodity another person wants.

[Anonymous No.1988167]

>>1988163

ALL CAPITALISM IS ANY SYSTEM THAT USES CURRENCY.

ANY SYSTEM USING CAPITAL.

CAPITALISM.

[Anonymous No.1988178]

>>1988157
You forgot the part where the government can sell "government bonds" to the treasury to simply pull money out of fucking nowhere.
Furthermore, Capitalism only works because it allows a government to function while in a national debt.

[Anonymous No.1988186]

>>1988163
Capitalism is when the markets are relatively open, and people are relatively free to acquire wealth through them. Those conditions are pretty much exactly what is required for an economic system to be sustainable.

[Anonymous No.1988188]

>>1988178

Most countries are in some form of debt or another. We live in a global economy and buying and selling shit is a fact of life.

And no, I didn't leave out the bond buying and selling, I mentioned it. It is a seldom used process, though.

The system is fine and it's been working for a while. With factors like inflation, technology and research we've been mobilizing towards a good future with a high level of growth. We're not in a depression, we're in a recession because growth is nearing 0%- that doesn't mean that we're not still moving forward. When the next boom comes (probably next year) everyone's going to be sitting pretty on a giant pile of cash.

U MAD?

Go listen to whatever pussy band you communist pussies listen to nowadays.

[Anonymous No.1988200]

>>1988104
lol, wow...

"Making money" in markets means making "wealth" or "value". Currency, which the government prints, is the exchange medium for wealth or value. The actual wealth or value does not come from the government. The Government just provides the service of producing a legal tender -- a fiat currency -- which does not have value in itself, but can be used for making any and all exchanges of value and wealth. Again this value and wealth is created by productivity -- for example, when you work at a job to produce a product or service. This work is exchanged for currency, which can be exchanged for an equal amount of value in any other form of goods and services. The ability to exchange value increases the wealth of all who can exchange it. This is why wealth builds up in countries will functioning and open markets.

[Anonymous No.1988206]

>>1988167
Not really. Capitalism is about using markets to accrue capital (of which money is just one kind). If free markets are an inevitable outcome of open exchange---like some kind of law of human nature---then capitalism is an inevitable outcome of free markets. Unfortunately, the converse is not necessarily true. There are easily capitalist systems which would not qualify as a remotely free market. Monopolies and unregulated externalities would be the chief textbook cause, though I'm sure there are more perversions.

[Anonymous No.1988212]

>>1988206
samefag here

Incidentally, if you think the current system is unsustainable, I agree. That's because the current system *is* based on monopolies and externalities. Chief monopoly issue is intellectual property (patent and copyright) and chief externality is pollution.

These edifices will crumble. (I hope!)

[Anonymous No.1988219]

It is funny many of you in this thread read your college economics books but, can't apply critical thinking to what is really going on.

It is like the difference between the kids who read their High School U.S history book and spout the garbage from it and the small amount of people who have read "Howard Zinn's - The People's History of the United States".

[Anonymous No.1988226]

>>1988206

No, really. You're referencing "free market" capitalism, which doesn't exist. Right now we live in a quasi-socialist junta (that's what I consider it, but bare with me.) We have a series of laws and a very large government. We're NOT A FREE MARKET SYSTEM. Do you faggots understand that? The "invisible hand" doesn't regulate the market in a completely free system because of a process called "corporate dumping" and monopolization. Combined with first-mover advantage, this means that pretty much any unscrupulous person with an idea can sell it for A SHITFUCKTON.

That's now how we work, though.

[Anonymous No.1988228]

>>1988226
It's like you really didn't even read my post.

[Anonymous No.1988241]

>>1988228

Oh, I just did. Point made AND accepted. I still think the system is sustainable, though.

[Anonymous No.1988243]

>>1988219

We're not talking about anything that's "going on." Right now is just intellectual dick-measuring.

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1988249]

Why is weed illegal in the first place? It's not a drug, it's not created by humans, it's a fucking plant created by God -- it's only chemical because we claim it to be, really, it's just Weed. P! = NP says weed should be legal.

[Anonymous No.1988260]

>>1988249

Weed is illegal because the government wanted to see what it could do.

[The Servant of Evil, Noctis !PhIopj2ZY2 No.1988268]

>>1988260
Fuck Sovereignty

[Anonymous No.1988275]

>>1988249
Think about this.

It's illegal to grow a plant that could make you happy, but it is perfectly legal to grow a plant with poisonous berries in great quantity.

Conclusion: A moral imperative of our society must be "It's better to kill people than to let them be happy."

[Anonymous No.1988277]

I am wondering how all the leading intelligent economists in the world predicted this huge recession when the textbooks you read say it is impossible? They must be wizards.

[Anonymous No.1988281]

>>1988249
Weed is illegal because industrial hemp rapes the face of the timber industry.

[Anonymous No.1988286]

>>1988281
that_old_canard.jpg

>>1988277
You have fallen for the oldest trick in the Republican book: slander academics. Countries with a stronger commitment to academic economists, and America's own academics, indeed made such predictions and warnings. But academics are routinely ignored in a country which prides their own ignorance.

[Anonymous No.1988301]

>>1988219
>implying that people who spout garbage from book are smarter than people who spout garbage from another book.

>and implying that the people spouting garbage from the more biased book are the smarter ones

[Anonymous No.1988310]

>>1988286
It was sarcasm

[Anonymous No.1988315]

>>1988310
my mistake

[Anonymous No.1988328]

>>1988286
So... America had a recession because they love their own ignorance and don't trust academics and are Republicans.... did I miss anything?

[Anonymous No.1988337]

>>1988328
I think you've flipped around certain primary and secondary causes but, that is the long and short of it.

[Anonymous No.1988353]

>>1987799
If some people feel the need to drug themselves, go rigth ahead..

I still think you potsmokers are useless hippefaggots who dont deserve anything, but by all means, heroin, pot, crack.. whatever gets you off, just stay away from us other people and we are good.

[Anonymous No.1988357]

Hate on republicans all you want- they're old white guys with green-tinted fingers who rape men and children with reckless abandon and force people to buckle down to their morals so they can trick people into working all day erry day.

BUT DEMOCRATS AREN'T ANY BETTER.

AT ALL.

[Anonymous No.1988377]

>>1988357

Tee hee, oh you.

[Anonymous No.1988379]

>>1988353
I'm pretty sure you take drugs too.
Enjoy your narrow minded philosophy.

[Anonymous No.1988383]

[Anonymous No.1988387]

[Anonymous No.1988388]

>>1988379

This. If you've ever had alcohol, sugar, or coffee...congratulations, you've just used a drug!

Fucking hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.1988392]

WARNING!

this is what potheads actually sound like

[Anonymous No.1988395]

[Anonymous No.1988400]

[Anonymous No.1988404]

>>1988392

0/10, but that's pretty funny bro.

Reminds me of those hilarious old commercials where someone smokes on joint and their baby sister falls into the swimming pool.

[Anonymous No.1988405]

[Anonymous No.1988411]

>>1988388
I'm on my 5th dr. pepper, man... but at least I'm not a pothead.

[Anonymous No.1988434]

>This. If you've ever had alcohol, sugar, or coffee...congratulations, you've just used a drug!

>Fucking hypocrites.

And this makes legalizing weed logical how?
Fucking 13year olds fighting for drugs like it’s the motherfucking French revolution.
If you are completely determined that you have to smoke plants to enjoy life, then go ahead; but why the fuck to you need a law that says its ok.

Is better for everyone if less people smoke at all, smoking weed is even more stupid. You all had those potheads at high school, wandering around with their red eyes being slow and stupid as fuck.
At least they disappeared when University started. ..
But let’s not make these faggots legal, I gladly pay tax so the police harass those bastards.

[Anonymous No.1988444]

ITT: Trolls trollig potheads.

[Anonymous No.1988461]

>>1988434
> but why the fuck to you need a law that says its ok.
Because
> I gladly pay tax so the police harass those bastards.
That.

Consider this; alcohol is legal due to popular demand. The same applies for cigarettes.
All stoners are saying is legalise weed and allow people a slice of free will that drinkers and regular smokers enjoy.
Nobody is forcing you to smoke weed, just like they don't force you to drink.
Freedom of choice, motherfucker.

[Anonymous No.1988483]

Wouldn't making the drug legal make it less of a 'peer pressure' factor? I mean, if i went to the beach and smoked some weed, and it was illegal, and i was a fuckin hard rebel man then i'd probably do loads. But if it was legal then it would be less of a novelty, and i'd just relax and have a bit. so although many more people would smoke it, less people would fuck themselves up over it. Tobacco is legal, harmful but even so many people have the sense not to smoke it. So why is weed different?

[Anonymous No.1988485]

>>1988483
Right, that's why no one does drugs in Amsterdam.

[Anonymous No.1988491]

>>1988485

So whats the death rate and accident rate and things like that over there like? I'd genuinely like to know more. You have any idea?

[Anonymous No.1988521]

>>1988491

[Anonymous No.1988524]

Califag here.

Voted no on prop 19 because I'm a member of the drug cartel and my profit margin will plummet if this passes.

Stay classy potheads.

[Vance Astro !!+8+hhOY7kCX No.1988532]

This thread is bad and you should feel bad

[Anonymous No.1988542]

>>1988524
This is actually an argument I've been hearing, but worded differently. These dumbasses running dispensaries are saying "Marlboro and Camel will just start selling weed and run all of our *small businesses* out of business."

So dumb. Just like Budweiser and Miller and Coors are the reason that there's no such thing as a microbrewery any more. We should go back to prohibition to protect the local beer producers.

[Anonymous No.1988550]

>>1988434
You dummy. Weed would still be illegal for minors, just like alcohol.

> but why the fuck to you need a law that says its ok
Why the fuck do you need a law that says it's not OK?

[Anonymous No.1988552]

>>1988542

Just like how we all still make moonshine in our bathtubs instead of just driving down to the local corner store and grabbing a six-pack, right?

It has nothing to do with protecting local weed growers, it has to do with drug dealers protecting the high price of weed. If weed becomes legal that knocks off almost all of the price; the reason it's so expensive is because of the risk involved with handling and selling it.

[Anonymous No.1988579]

>>1988542
Actually, microbreweries are booming, at least here in the midwest. I can name 15 different successful microbreweries in Iowa and Illinois alone. I don't think prop 19 will ruin the microgrow business.

Incidentally, today is also the day Iowa votes to retain or eject the supreme court justices who struck down the "one man-one woman" marriage law, making Iowa one of the few states where gay marriage is legal.

[Anonymous No.1988606]

over $40 billion is spent annually fighting the war specifically against marijuana

it costs over $50,000 to keep an inmate in prison for a year

both of these costs are picked up by tax payers.

Marijuana became illegal in the 1930 when hemp was stepping on the toes of the timber industry as well as the new emerging technology from DuPont called nylon. The Secretary of the Treasury had invested huge sums of his personal wealth into DuPont. To deal with this, the companies created mud throwing ads that said blacks and latinos love to use weed, so a bill was passed INCLUDING the growing of hemp to kill the emerging market.

Marijuana is currently one of the biggest cash crops around, and if legalized could be taxed and regulated.

I don't know why the government doesn't want to legalize it, but I can guess:

1) That $40 billion goes to fund police, drug officials, etc who are directly employed by the government

2) If this cost became a source of revenue, the government would be forced to downsize, and despite what politicians may say they want to keep the government's influence as large as possible

3) Using scare tactics about how you NEED a certain politician to fight the war on drugs for the sake of your children is a great way to get votes. Also, a larger government influence and threat of punishment has been a control mechanism of ruling bodies since the dawn of man.

4) Despite what you would like to believe, politicians get elected through backing and funding from sponsors, who are very often leaders of corporations. I doubt that the timber, alcohol, and cotton industries would ever allow their politicians to back this. They would probably make them fight it.

No, I don't smoke pot. However, turning down a huge source of revenue is moronic.

[Anonymous No.1988629]

[Anonymous No.1988657]

ITT: People who forget the fact that 19 is irrelevant; people will smoke and sell weed no matter what.

[Anonymous No.1988659]

Anybody knows where a fellow european can follow the results of prop 19 live?

[Anonymous No.1988669]

>>1988657 - Person who doesn't understand prop 19

[Anonymous No.1988674]

>>1988669

[Anonymous No.1988682]

>>1988579
Wow no shit. I guess you're not good at picking up on sarcasm. Actually, I don't think you can even call it sarcasm when the post clearly says "SO DUMB" right at the beginning of that sentence.

[Anonymous No.1988697]

>>1988552
1) There are still people who make their own moonshine.
2) That's an inaccurate comparison to "small business" dispensaries. Microbreweries is the correct comparison.
3) Taking away money from drug dealers who want to inflate prices is a GOOD thing.

I can't tell from your post, but you're either arguing FOR prop 19, or you're one of the drug dealers who wants to keep the price inflated.

[Anonymous No.1988707]

>>1988674

[Anonymous No.1988736]

First off: it's not going to pass.

There's too many people who support it staying illegal. For every pothead there's a person who actually votes who wants to see it stay banned. For every kid there's a parent worried about their kid- and guess what? Parents vote. They vote every day. The elderly vote just as much. Most potheads are college students and highschool students. They don't make contributions, they don't help society, they don't do anything. Voting for prop 19 is POLITICAL SUICIDE. Corporations can't advocate it, millionaires don't give a shit and television and the education system are BOTH against it.

Yeah, the benefits outweigh the negatives. Yeah, it would be better for society. Yeah, marijuanna isn't that bad for you.

You look like faggots arguing about it and I don't care who wins because I'm going to smoke weed anyways.

[Anonymous No.1988744]

>>1988736
This is probably true but here's the thing: As long as you have that attitude, parents and the elderly will CONTINUE to control the way the world works. Sure, you can smoke weed now, until they decide that you can't.

[Anonymous No.1988769]

>>1988606
> Marijuana became illegal in the 1930 when hemp was stepping on the toes of the timber industry as well as the new emerging technology from DuPont called nylon.

I can't believe this shit is still discussed like it has some factual basis. It doesn't. Conservative faggots like banning fun, pure and simple. It's why alcohol was banned---they even got a goddamn *amendment* for it!---it is why opium was banned, and it is why marijuana was banned. It's why all drugs of relatively little harm have been banned.

Never attribute to malice what is accounted for by stupidity.

[Anonymous No.1988778]

ITT

[Verdeski !.L61CJPAug No.1988797]

>>1988769

> Conservative faggots like banning fun.

QFT

[Anonymous No.1988801]

Voting yes on 19 because it will help my legitimate lighting business, other businesses like hydro shops, and it will improve the economy in several different facets *IF* asshole greedy fuck politicians can keep their hands off of the taxes raised from such and let it go where it needs to go.

[Anonymous No.1988821]

>>1988769

don't just dismiss something without looking into it

hemp was cheaper than timber by far for the newspaper business. It was also leagues ahead of nylon and was burying business.

You don't think that the companies would do something to fight an emerging product if they were already established? Or that a high level government official wouldn't protect his investments?

[Anonymous No.1988824]

>>1988801
There's a few arguments to be had here. Improved quality and competition means the market price of pot should be pretty low. But, thanks to the black market, we know what a segment of the population is willing to pay for it. It's not unthinkable that the government will tax the product into the realm of its black market pricing. It is probably impossible to accomplish exactly this, however, so there should be some savings passed on to consumers.

The best effect will undoubtedly be spending money on more legitimate problems, like murder, or terrorism if you're one of those. After 9/11 we had an easy opportunity to fight terrorism without charging anyone a penny: just end the war on drugs. Funny how none of the small-government republicans managed to come up with that plan, eh? (Worse still that well-educated and academic conservatives have nearly unanimous agreement that the war on drugs needs to end.)

Ah, well.

[Anonymous No.1988828]

>>1988769
>he doesn't know about the lobbying industry.
>laughingniggers.jpg

[Anonymous No.1988833]

>>1988824
They're trying already to tax the fuck out of it. I think it was San Fran or San Diego that wants to put a $500 tax per plant, regardless of size. Talk about trying to fuck people before they can get a chance to do anything. This will ensure only big commercial growers can grow, which will mean inflated prices, which means a black market will still exist.

[Anonymous No.1988839]

>>1988821
> Hemp wasn't a mighty industry in the U.S. prior to passage of the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Only about 1,300 acres of hemp--about two square miles--were under cultivation. It was cheaper to import the stuff than grow it.

> Even so, total U.S. consumption was only about 2,000 tons, and most of that was used for rope and such. Textile manufacturers had long since abandoned hemp for cotton, which was easier to process. An improved hemp-processing technology had been invented, and the industry might have rebounded had it not been for the antihemp crusade. But nobody knows for certain.

> The suppression of hemp wasn't, as some have alleged, the result of an unholy conspiracy between federal narcotics commissioner Harry Anslinger, the Du Pont corporation, and William Randolph Hearst. No question, Anslinger was a zealot who thought marijuana was a menace to society, and Hearst's newspapers had done their best to whip up antihemp hysteria. But so had everybody else in the press. Lurid antimarijuana stories appeared in the New Yorker, for God's sake.

> The hemp industry didn't pose a significant threat to Du Pont and its new synthetic product, nylon. The most widely publicized early use of nylon was for women's stockings. Hemp wasn't used for this purpose.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1116/is-hemp-nonpharmacological-marijuana-the-answer-to-our
-environmental-problems

[Anonymous No.1988841]

>>1988833
I don't know if you've noticed, but large commercial growers have a tendency towards a lower market price, not a higher one.

[Anonymous No.1988859]

>>1988491
No idea. I do know that Amsterdam is considered both the drug capital and crime capital of Europe.

[Verdeski !.L61CJPAug No.1988891]

>>1988859

that's because it's a city based on sin. Nobody talks about how alcoholic and run-down Portland is but you can be sure Vegas is a fucking cesspool.

[Anonymous No.1988899]

>>1988891
exactly this

Did the previously high murder rates in New York imply something about Wall street? What about Washington, DC's crime rate?

[Anonymous No.1988926]

>mfw I voted for pot, democrats, republicans, and libertarians.

Best solution to the problem, and all that.

[Verdeski !.L61CJPAug No.1988946]

> mfw this is on the science board

[μαθμαν !!vnLoxcfyRGs No.1988951]

I voted yes on prop 19.
Sage for not /sci/ related.