patrick.net

John Bailo says

Mary Jane is the one substance in the Universe which has solely beneficial effects with zero detriments. Please, let's re-write the engineering and science books on this one.

Reason 4 for being a Landlord and being your own boss.. you can take as many drugs as you like and not worry about taking some drug test as part of your employment.

Of course if Roberto has a stash in one of his properties.. the property will be confiscated and sold by the police at auction.

tatupu70 says

I'm far from an expert, but I don't believe anyone is talking about moving profits overseas, they are talking about LEAVING them overseas. The profits are made by an overseas subsidiary by playing games with transfer prices.

there is nothing to leave overseas.. profits are a bookkeeping entry and taxable by the US and Foreign countries. You still havent figured out how much to tax since the same overseas profit has already been taxed by foreign govt and US regulations applies the Foreign tax credit so the same profit isnt taxed twice.

What is overseas is "cash". Part of it 3-4 months working capital to pay for employees, rent, taxes, and other expenses. The bulk that isnt tapped for major construction projects or to buy Treasury Paper. So taxing more to pay the Treasury holders is no more than a dog chasing its tail. Your taxing more to pay back the IOUs you have issued. But the Govt Spending problem still remains since the Govt cannot control is behavior.

as far as Transfer Pricing Agreements.. the vast majority are simple cost plus.. it costs a sub $10,000/month operate for a couple sales people (Salary,PR Tax, Rent, taxes and other) so the they charge 5-10% above costs.. for their local statutory books, that comes to revenues at $11,000 and net profit of $1,000 after expenses of $10,000. With low tax of 15% that leaves $850 in the bank to do with as needed.. non expense charge.. Buy Fixed Assets, make a refundable deposit, etc.

The $11,000 is eliminated by equal amounts in the interco accounts. And for US Tax purposes all the global revenues less less expenses less taxes paid leaving Taxable income (per IRS not GAAP) are still taxable/payable to the IRS. There is no game here. Your not going to get some big mountain of cash as you believe.. thats not going to happen.

thomaswong.1986 says

there is nothing to leave overseas.. profits are a bookkeeping entry and taxable by the US and Foreign countries

Really? What do you know that these folks don't then?

http://qz.com/53949/four-charts-that-show-us-multinationals-hiding-profits-abroad/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/06/10/1215040/-US-Corporations-Hiding-Taxable-Income-Overseas#

"Like other companies, Apple typically keeps profits on overseas sales in overseas accounts. When someone buys an iPad in Paris or Sydney, for instance, the profit stays outside the United States."

"Apple may pay some corporate income taxes on that profit to the country where it sells the iPad, but it minimizes these by using various accounting moves to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. For example the strategy known as "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," routes profits through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries and then to the Caribbean."

http://news.yahoo.com/apples-phantom-taxes-hide-billions-profit-183821426--finance.html

The key point being that companies don't owe taxes on profits that stay in overseas accounts.

"And just like other corporations, Apple leaves cash overseas. If it brought it home to the U.S., it would have to pay federal income taxes on the money (though it would get a credit for foreign taxes already paid)."

thomaswong.1986 says

as far as Transfer Pricing Agreements.. the vast majority are simple cost plus

Sure, unless you are trying to avoid paying taxes.

tatupu70 says

"Like other companies, Apple typically keeps profits on overseas sales in overseas accounts. When someone buys an iPad in Paris or Sydney, for instance, the profit stays outside the United States."

everthing is taxable and payble current or defferred.. the excessive cash is used to buy US treasury paper.. look up how much CASH apple has compared to US Govt paper. page 57... http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-13-416534&CIK=320193

out of $147B they only have $5B real cash in all their global accounts. The rest went to buy Treasury paper..

so you want more taxes to pay back Apple for buying Treasuries ?

thomaswong.1986 says

everthing is taxable and payble current or defferred

Thomas--this is why I find it hard to believe that you are a controller, about to be a VP. This is basic stuff that even I know and I'm definitely NOT an accountant.

"The U.S. currently taxes worldwide income at a rate of as much as 35 percent. Most companies pay lower effective rates because the U.S. allows them to claim tax credits for payments to other governments and defer taxation until profits are brought home."

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-31/obama-diverges-with-camp-over-taxing-company-profits-overseas.html

tatupu70 says

"Apple may pay some corporate income taxes on that profit to the country where it sells the iPad, but it minimizes these by using various accounting moves to shift profits to countries with low tax rates. For example the strategy known as "Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich," routes profits through Irish and Dutch subsidiaries and then to the Caribbean."

Page 64.. http://investor.apple.com/secfiling.cfm?filingID=1193125-13-416534&CIK=320193

Indefinitely invested earnings of foreign subsidiaries (4,614 )

say $4.6 Billion... which goes to foreign expansion costs to build Apple Store construction and other projects.

The FTC will avoid double taxation, but what ever lower rates you pay to foreign
govt is made up by the difference up to 35% or such by the IRS.

And dont forget.. the bigger you are .. the more IRS audits you get. And if the IRS
doesnt like what your doing so they will disqualify the treatment and you will pay.

thomaswong.1986 says

And dont forget.. the bigger you are .. the more IRS audits you get. And if the IRS

doesnt like what your doing so they will disqualify the treatment and you will pay.

It's not against the law. For the fiftieth time. It's not taxable to the US until you bring the money back to the States.

tatupu70 says

It's taxable in the country where the subsidiary is located. Until it is brought back to the US.

you think the foreign taxing authority dont get their cut in Payroll, VAT and Income Taxes... they sure do.. and they too do their audits of the Subs...

thomaswong.1986 says

you think the foreign taxing authority dont get their cut in Payroll, VAT and Income Taxes... they sure do.. and they too do their audits of the Subs...

What the hell are you talking about. Of course the foreign country gets their taxes. And that's why US companies choose low tax countries in which to operate.

tatupu70 says

It's not against the law. For the fiftieth time. It's not taxable to the US until you bring the money back to the States.

what are you complaining about.. like apple above. they "Gave the Money" already to the US Govt for an IOU.. Treasury Paper.. Go look it up. Now you want to tax more to pay back Apple for their purchase of Treasuries? Bright !

You want the US Govt to Tax a portion of $5B Apples investments while Apple Holds some $45B of US govt IOUs ? Yea.. thats going to solve the problem... well at least Obama can stick his nose in the air and say.. how great he was in solving the inequalities. laughable..

thomaswong.1986 says

what are you complaining about.. like apple above. they "Gave the Money" already to the US Govt for an IOU.. Treasury Paper.. Go look it up. Now you want to tax more to pay back Apple for their purchase of Treasuries? Bright !

Surely you can see the difference between a LOAN and a tax payment. The government might not need the loan if Apple had paid its taxes in the first place.

Do you at least now understand how US corporations are hiding their profits and avoiding US taxes?

tatupu70 says

Do you at least now understand how US corporations are hiding their profits and avoiding US taxes?

Who is "hiding" what ? Lets roll out the IRS auditors on this...

tatupu70 says

Surely you can see the difference between a LOAN and a tax payment. The government might not need the loan if Apple had paid its taxes in the first place.

You mean they (the US Govt) are overspending .. and will continue to overspend. You add up all the other Big Fortune 500 companies .. its all the same.. lets throw in the Chinese/Japanese as well since they own what 50% of IOUs.. they to need to be taxed.

thomaswong.1986 says

Who is "hiding" what ? Lets roll out the IRS auditors on this...

Sure--roll them out. Unfortunately, what they are doing is legal so the auditors won't have an issue with it.

Again--as a controller, I'd think you'd understand that.

thomaswong.1986 says

You mean they (the US Govt) are overspending .. and will continue to overspend. You add up all the other Big Fortune 500 companies .. its all the same.. lets throw in the Chinese/Japanese as well since they own what 50% of IOUs.. they to need to be taxed.

lol--are you really that dense?

tatupu70 says

Sure--roll them out. Unfortunately, what they are doing is legal so the auditors won't have an issue with it.

Again--as a controller, I'd think you'd understand that.

like i said.. who is hiding what ?

tatupu70 says

thomaswong.1986 says

You mean they (the US Govt) are overspending .. and will continue to overspend. You add up all the other Big Fortune 500 companies .. its all the same.. lets throw in the Chinese/Japanese as well since they own what 50% of IOUs.. they to need to be taxed.

lol--are you really that dense?

if you have to reach outside of your border and issue IOUs to pay for your spending..
yes. you have a spending problem. ...

thomaswong.1986 says

like i said.. who is hiding what ?

And like I said, US corporations are keeping money overseas to avoid paying US taxes. What don't you understand??

tatupu70 says

And like I said, US corporations are keeping money overseas to avoid paying US taxes. What don't you understand??

.
There you go again with all this talk about "avoidance"...
.

do you know what it takes to grow US business overseas... sure doesnt sound like it.

do you want US companies .. Apple, Ford, Hersey, IBM, Chevron.. to grow or do you favor the other guys ... Toyota, Samsung, Royal Dutch and Bank of China.

thomaswong.1986 says

do you know what it takes to grow US business overseas... sure doesnt sound like it.

lol--it has nothing to do with keeping money overseas to avoid taxation.

Dan8267 says

Can I make it any clearer?

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes. Those stoned teenager neighbors of ours are reckless when they are high. That's the difference.

FortWayne says

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes.

Actually yes he does.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

FortWayne says

Dan8267 says

Can I make it any clearer?

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes. Those stoned teenager neighbors of ours are reckless when they are high. That's the difference.

So, your claim is that marijuana use should be illegal because driving while under the influence of marijuana causes reckless driving and vehicular homicide. OK, let's examine this claim.

Let's start with the facts of driving while under the influence of marijuana.

At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.

G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and Alcohol in Motor Vehicle Accidents

The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.

F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.

Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.

Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:
1. There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2. The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.

M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. “Role of Cannabis in Motor Vehicle Crashes.” Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.

In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. …Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.

A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.

Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor … function. … [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.

UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.

For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. … In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.

Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.

Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.

P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.

To summarize all the above studies...
1. Marijuana use has never been shown to increase the likelihood of automobile accidents or fatalities.
2. Many independent studies have show zero correlation between light or heavy marijuana use and automobile accidents.
3. In contrast, alcohol use shows a very strong positive correlation to crashes and fatalities.
4. Other legal drugs have also shown a very strong positive correlation to crashes and fatalities.

So your claim is false. Furthermore, if we were to go by your reasoning (something that causes car crashes and deaths should be made illegal), then we should outlaw alcohol. Drunk driving kills over 10,000 people a year in the U.S. alone, whereas there is no evidence that driving while high has ever caused an accident, nonetheless, a fatal one.

But even if marijuana usage did lead to accidents -- and all the evidence says otherwise -- if marijuana should be illegal because of that, then there are a lot of other legal things that should be illegal first, things that cause many accidents like
1. Alcohol
2. Mobile Phones
3. Many prescription and over the counter drugs.
4. Music players (MP3, CDs, tapes, car radios, etc.)
5. Restaurant Take-Out
6. Texting

Every one of these things, when used or done while driving, has been shown to significantly increase crashes and fatal crashes. Yet, at most, the law prohibits such things only while driving. So the argument that marijuana should be illegal even if it caused auto accidents, is simply wrong. One would only make driving while high illegal.

Think about it this way. It ain't safe to have sex while driving, but if we made sex illegal, our country would cease to exist in a single lifetime.

Oh, and alcohol kills a lot of people even excluding drunk driving. Why isn't beer illegal? Oh yeah, because NASCAR fans like beer. I guess if marijuana was sponsoring NASCAR then it would be legal.

Dan I don't care for someones biased or unbiased research. I have real life experience out here that states otherwise.

FortWayne says

Dan I don't care for someones biased or unbiased research. I have real life experience out here that states otherwise.

The current Republican credo.

FortWayne says

Dan I don't care for someones biased or unbiased research. I have real life experience out here that states otherwise.

Seriously? You're official position is that any mountain of evidence that contradicts your beliefs should not be examined least you should have to change your opinion on a subject?

No wonder nothing gets inside the bubble.

It was a tag line, but now I have come to believe that liberalism is a mental disorder. As such, I have divorced myself from friends/family that are liberals. I do not waste my time trying to educate social progressives with logic or math that proves the stupidity of their cause. I walk away. I do not watch the main stream media but will scan commercials so as to not buy products that advertise on their silly programs. No Cialis or Progressive Auto Insurance for me. I'm laughing at the Obammatrons crying about losing their insurance or their rates skyrocketing. The same with the gays complaining about divorce lawyers screwing them. No intro jobs for kids cause minimum wage is $10 (don't be mean spirited make it $50. per hour). It's all too funny. I have never been happier.

pearcebauz says

I do not waste my time trying to educate social progressives with logic or math that proves the stupidity of their cause.

Likely because you can't.

FortWayne says

Joe the cammel doesn't endanger everyone when he drives and smokes. Those stoned teenager neighbors of ours are reckless when they are high. That's the difference.

Nope. He just endangers everyone around him with second hand smoke. He also encourages others to take up the habit and many millions of people have died of lung cancer as a result.

All drugs should be legal. If you hurt somebody seriously in an accident at your fault, no matter what influenced you (drugs, a cold, old age, or just being a bad driver), you should be punished equally under the law and/or your license suspended. It's called personal responsibility and like there should be no "good" or "bad" debt, there should be no "good" or "bad" cause of causing an accident that results in net hurt or loss of lives. Smoking/drinking etc. for adults should be permitted or disallowed at the home or business owners discretion. Everything else is government overreach.

sbh says

mell says

Everything else is government overreach.

You have little excuse to also shutter your mind like this. Some where between "radical freedom" and "government overreach" is a broad condition, a protracted mitigation, in which the great breadth of life transpires. A component of that condition is a popular election from which freedom willfully compiles its restrictions. What you repeatedly do is take up a ruler, break off the 1 and the 12 and through the rest away. Life and freedom take place largely inside the 2 and the 11. No wonder Rothbard had no use for math.

It was in the context of a concrete example and explanation of the boundaries. You have anything to refute that a home or business owner should not be allowed to allow/forbid adults to drink or smoke? As I said, everything else is government overreach.

Dan8267 says

F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.

Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. … Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.”

your links are from pro pot organizations and are not science by any means..they are biased as you accuse the big pharmas. You are practically asking NORML for data to justify smoking pot and driving.

http://www.cannabis-med.org/board-directors.htm

Franjo Grotenhermen, MD, Germany, Executive Director

Why not access US Medical journals on the subject matter...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/02/09/smoke-and-mirrors-driving-while-on-marijuana-doubles-ones-chances-of-a-serious-car-crash/

A new study, however, shows that drivers who smoke marijuana within a few hours of hitting the road are almost twice as likely as stone-sober motorists to be in a crash that results in serious injury or death.

But the researchers’ findings make sense to others in the field. “Their results are consistent with experimental evidence that cannabis use leads to dose related impairments in simulated driving, psychomotor skills and on-road driving,” Wayne Hall, of the University of Queensland’s Center for Clinical Research who was not involved in the new research, wrote in a related essay in BMJ.

In addition to the finding that drivers who had recently smoked pot were substantially more likely to be involved in a serious accident, the researchers found that those who had died in these crashes had higher amounts of the drug’s compound tetrahydrocannabinol than those who survived. But there was not enough data to link concentrations of the compound to various outcomes in order to suggest a threshold for dangerous intoxication, noted the researchers, who were led by Mark Asbridge, of Dalhousie University’s Department of Community Health and Epidemiology.

-------------------------

Agosti and Levin (2004) indicate that cannabis-dependent users are more likely to seek professional treatment for dependency if they had previously sought treatment or suffered from alcohol dependence. However, only 1/10 – 1/3 cannabis dependent users will seek treatment within a year. And the percentage of cannabis-dependent users who entered treatment is the lowest of all illicit drugs.

Another Australian study showed that of individuals presenting for interventions for cannabis problems, many had been using on an almost daily basis for an average of 14 years and were suffering serious health and psychological consequences from cannabis use. In addition, Arendt and Munk-Jorgensen (2004) report that cannabis-dependent users entering treatment for cannabis dependency were found to have suffered from depression, schizophrenia and personality disorders more than people dependent on other drugs. This research indicates that these psychological problems are among the main reasons for seeking treatment for cannabis use.

Studies of long-term and regular cannabis users have found that a variety of cannabis-related problems are reported. For example, among a sample of heavy cannabis users in rural Australia, three in four people reported experiencing a persistent desire for cannabis and frequent intoxication during daily activities. Over half of the survey group (54%) reported tolerance while 5% reported suffering withdrawal symptoms. Swift et al.surveyed long-term cannabis users in Sydney, Australia and found that 78% reported withdrawal and 76% reported tolerance. More than a third (39%) reported using cannabis to relieve withdrawal symptoms.

thomaswong.1986 says

pro pot

Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs.
UK Department of Environment
UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.

Yeah, all those hippies in government.

thomaswong.1986 says

Why not access US Medical journals on the subject matter...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/02/09/smoke-and-mirrors-driving-while-on-marijuana-doubles-ones-chances-of-a-serious-car-crash/

1. The British Medical Journal is British, not American.
2. I have quoted studies from the U.K.
3. The article you linked to does not provide a reference to the study it is allegedly paraphrasing, so it's impossible to tell if the article is representing the study accurately.
4. Even if marijuana use while driving resulted in accidents, that only justifies outlawing driving while under the influence, not outlawing marijuana use. After all, we don't outlaw mobile phone use, alcohol use, or eating take-out.

Finally, we should be very skeptical of anti-marijuana pseudo-science as our nation and others have a very long history of such pseudo-scientific claims such as
1. Pot causes brain damage.
2. Pot overdoes kill.
3. Pot is a gateway drug.
4. Pot causes mental illness.
5. Pot causes cancer.

Just to name a few.

egads101 says

Fucktard, gangbangers kill each other due to the ILLEGAL TRADE and PROFIT in
drugs. Not because they smoked a joint.

the drug abuse could be behind the willingness to join a gang. Or, perhaps, the same lack of mental tuffness or self control or self workth that leads one to a gang life may also be what leads one to try any drug, and become a slave to any drug.

deviant liberals rely on armed Americans that follow laws to protect them, but demand an end to armed Americans that follow laws. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

dope use may not be 100% amung gansters -- but it is close to it, and it is way above the non-ganster dope user percentage. Dope is used to avoid reality. Embrace reality.

p.s., your mama.

Bap33 says

deviant liberals rely on armed Americans that follow laws to protect them,

Um Bap33, what are you going to do to bring these perverts to justice. I'd really like to see you gun folk protecting us liberals from these cops, and yes, I'm being serious. When are you going to form a posse and arrest those criminal cops? If you don't, the Second Amendment is all hat, no cattle.

Bap33 says

dope use may not be 100% amung gansters -- but it is close to it, and it is way above the non-ganster dope user percentage. Dope is used to avoid reality. Embrace reality.

Bap, take a look at this kid.

He got leukemia and went through chemotherapy. It did not help. It was sick all the time, losing weight, and feeling terrible. His mother took him off chemotherapy and used pot instead. His health and appetite returned, he now has hair on his head, and he is now healthy and happy while his cancer is in remission.

Are you saying this three-year-old is some punk thug, soon-to-be criminal with bad morals?

Would you deny this mother the right to do what see believes is best for her son letting him smoke pot?

Don't you believe in small government and individual responsibility? Shouldn't you be appalled at the Democratic nanny state that says politicians know best and you should not be able to make decisions for yourself and your children?

If Bloomberg's ban on sodas over 16 ounces pisses you off as leftist, nanny state stupidity, then shouldn't a legal ban on marijuana piss you off ten times as much especially when the active chemical is a well-known and extremely effective pain killer without all the dangerous side effects that other legal and patented drugs have?

How do you resolve these inherent hypocrisies in promoting the criminalization of marijuana usage? And where is all that "Christian" sympathy you are supposed to have for others who are suffering?

I guess more than half the country is for promoting gangsta life.

Bap33 says

the drug abuse could be behind the willingness to join a gang. Or, perhaps, the same lack of mental tuffness or self control or self workth that leads one to a gang life may also be what leads one to try any drug, and become a slave to any drug.

deviant liberals rely on armed Americans that follow laws to protect them, but demand an end to armed Americans that follow laws. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

This convinces me that Bap actually smokes a lot of weed, and was high when he wrote this.

IT's his chronic pot smoking induced paranoia that induces him to rant against weed on this forum. In his paranoid state he reckons that the NSA guys that are spying on him will read his anti weed rant, and that will throw them off the trail of his daily drug use.

What he doesn't realize is that this type of thing is a total give away to his drug problem:

Bap33 says

deviant liberals rely on armed Americans that follow laws to protect them, but demand an end to armed Americans that follow laws. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

You have to me smoking a lot of the really strong stuff to come up with something like that. I can just see him, thinking how profound that is, and what a genius he is for having such great insight.

Dan8267 says

How do you resolve these inherent hypocrisies in promoting the criminalization of marijuana usage?

there is no hypocrisies if one can distill useful medicine from otherwise what could
be illicit narcotics. Morphine (pain killers) is perfectly legal and useful, while Heroin is not. Both come from are the same source. The same can be applied to marijuana to distill its useful medical properties, but no... "marijuana use" as if its recreational isnt justified and should continue to be illegal. There is no point ruining lives because some addicts want it so.

marcus says

Bap33 says

deviant liberals rely on armed Americans that follow laws to protect them, but demand an end to armed Americans that follow laws. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

You have to me smoking a lot of the really strong stuff to come up with something like that. I can just see him, thinking how profound that is, and what a genius he is for having such great insight.

no.. Bap33 is making alot of sense, since we have a president who cherry picks which laws he wants to uphold, and is certainly willing to break others.. that is the liberals way..

we have a president and an army of liberals today, which makes even Richard Nixon look good !