First Came Freedom and Then Came Bureaucracy: Legalized Marijuana in Colorado

After reading this article, it sounds like legalized marijuana in Colorado will eventually lead to a regulatory body within state government dedicated to monitoring and enforcing laws dealing with the sale and consumption of marijuana. It will be sad if the tax revenue generated by marijuana sales simply go back to regulating marijuana sales and consumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-our-mellow-dude.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1

It's a perpetual cycle.

Let the peons believe they're free while a new tax farm is created.

Turtleneck wrote:After reading this article, it sounds like legalized marijuana in Colorado will eventually lead to a  regulatory body within state government dedicated to monitoring and enforcing laws dealing with the sale and consumption of marijuana. It will be sad if the tax revenue generated by marijuana sales simply go back to regulating marijuana sales and consumption.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/opinion/dowd-dont-harsh-our-mellow-dude.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1

Well, I live in Wyoming (and about as far from CO as you can get. And the amount of Colorado weeed that has flooded my town is staggering. People just don't give a ****. Not sure what this has to do with your regulatory body, but it's an observation.

I thought that money was already mostly dedicated to education spending?

It's certainly a step above government violence of throwing people into cages for enslavement or extorting money from them.

Actually, it's still extortion... but Rome wasn't built in a day, either.

Rocinante wrote:

Well, I live in Wyoming (and about as far from CO as you can get.  And the amount of Colorado weeed that has flooded my town is staggering.  People just don't give a ****.  Not sure what this has to do with your regulatory body, but it's an observation.  

I thought that money was already mostly dedicated to education spending?

I imagine border states will eventually ask Colorado to find a way to slow down the movement of marijuana across state lines. Border states are probably not too happy about increasing law enforcement costs due to legalization in Colorado.

xsanguine wrote:It's certainly a step above government violence of throwing people into cages for enslavement or extorting money from them.

Actually, it's still extortion... but Rome wasn't built in a day, either.

Not to change the subject, but the state - as in any federal government - seems to have a natural extortion-like relationship with its people. If you buy into the idea that the state uses war and violence instrumentally, then the state becomes a protection racket.

Turtleneck wrote:

Not to change the subject, but the state - as in any federal government - seems to have a natural extortion-like relationship with its people.

It's the only way it is able to exist. Most people generally wouldn't voluntarily support an entity that spies on them and treats them all as criminals as a standard practice. That's not including all the killing and domination that defines the essence of America to those around the world.

Turtleneck wrote:If you buy into the idea that the state uses war and violence instrumentally, then the state becomes a protection racket.

What would be the justification of someone who [i]doesn't[/] "buy" into the idea, do you think?

A different take on the idea that that legalization aids in decreasing and increasing the role and size of government at the same time.

Two of the larger social trends of our time — the growth of payday gambling and the legalization of marijuana — have two things in common: They are justified as the expansion of personal liberty, and they serve the interests of an expanding government. The ideological alliance behind these changes is among the strangest in U.S. politics. Libertarians seek to lift governmental restraints on consensual acts. State governments seek sources of revenue without the political inconvenience of requesting broad tax increases. Both find common ground in encouraging and exploiting the weaknesses and addictions of citizens. (And business interests and their lobbyists, of course, find new ways to profit from reliable vices.)]Two of the larger social trends of our time — the growth of payday gambling and the legalization of marijuana — have two things in common: They are justified as the expansion of personal liberty, and they serve the interests of an expanding government. The ideological alliance behind these changes is among the strangest in U.S. politics. Libertarians seek to lift governmental restraints on consensual acts. State governments seek sources of revenue without the political inconvenience of requesting broad tax increases. Both find common ground in encouraging and exploiting the weaknesses and addictions of citizens. (And business interests and their lobbyists, of course, find new ways to profit from reliable vices.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-gerson-corrupting-citizens-for-fun-and-profit/2014/07/14/da321826-0b87-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

"Activists" submit signatures for a ballot proposal to permit an oz of pot in Grosse Pointe Park. I didn't know potheads had the stamina to be "activists".

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140716/METRO01/307160053/1361/Activists-submit-596-petition-signatures-to-decriminalize-marijuana-possession-in-Grosse-Pointe-Park

As with anything, follow the money. This Thomas Lavigne, president of the Decriminalize Grosse Pointe Park Committee, is an attorney and a self proclaimed "Cannabis Counsel". Just trying to get rich of other people's gullibility. Not to mention even if passed, pot is still against state law, meaning the sole affect if that the fines you pay for breaking the law go to the State vs the local city coffers.

They will legalize it and find some other way to persecute people. It's a vicious cycle of power, corruption and ...the American way.

xsanguine wrote:
It's the only way it is able to exist.

  

Most people like the idea of passable roads and the FDA and FAA and public parks, works... electricity... a gas furnace in their home.

Why do you think any of this would be around without a govt to regulate, organize it? Let alone ya know... laws...patent regulation, contract enforcement... all those things that allow people to conduct business.

Man, the simplicity of your world is staggering.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

  

Most people like the idea of passable roads and the FDA and FAA and public parks, works... electricity... a gas furnace in their home.

Why do you think any of this would be around without a govt to regulate, organize it? Let alone ya know... laws...patent regulation, contract enforcement... all those things that allow people to conduct business.

Man, the simplicity of your world is staggering.

Xsanguine has a religious belief in a world without government. In that world, everyone would choose to be nice and respectful. In the unlikely event that anyone did anything that others found objectionable, the rest of society would shun the wrongdoer. However, xsanguine wouldn't want to start it from scratch; he'd want his no-government world to start with the conveniences already created...by government.

right on cue, two nutjob big government whackos chime in. Yeah man, wanting limited government means we don't want any government or roads!! Yeah!

  

The_Dude wrote:right on cue, two nutjob big government whackos chime in. Yeah man, wanting limited government means we don't want any government or roads!! Yeah!

  

"We"? I didn't say anything about you. But I will, if that's what you'd like. You're an obtuse and obnoxious whiner, and I can't recall anything interesting you've ever posted.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

"We"?  I didn't say anything about you.  But I will, if that's what you'd like.  You're an obtuse and obnoxious whiner, and I can't recall anything interesting you've ever posted.

  

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

"We"?  I didn't say anything about you.  But I will, if that's what you'd like.  You're an obtuse and obnoxious whiner, and I can't recall anything interesting you've ever posted.

Coming from you, I couldn't be happier. If you ever agreed with anything I said, I'd shoot myself for being a complete dumbfuck.

You are a delusional whackjob, dude. Do you read what you post? You are red with envy from people better off than you.

I wonder why that is. All the liberals here who don't make money lash out at people that do. Why is that? Instead of trying to bring people up, you try and tear successful people down. The insecurities liberals have are astounding and truly mind boggling.

Maybe you should worry less about how much money other people have and try to make some more yourself? Finances are usually the first reason why people are unhappy, angry, and bitter. And that describes almost every liberal poster here.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Man, the simplicity of your world is staggering.

  

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

  

Most people like the idea of passable roads and the FDA and FAA and public parks, works... electricity... a gas furnace in their home.

Why do you think any of this would be around without a govt to regulate, organize it? Let alone ya know... laws...patent regulation, contract enforcement... all those things that allow people to conduct business.

What is it about roads, electricity, and gas infrastructure that is only possibly run by a government?

You do realize that private toll roads existed previous to the freeway monopoly, correct? I'm definitely interested to hear why you believe electricity and gas are only providable by government entities. Although, even now, in our highly regulated mixed economy, private contractors do the bulk of work... government just finances it (through threat of violence and theft) and, in many cases, provides the tools for monopoly (a government enforced one or becomes one themselves

Why do I think any of this would be around without a govt to regulate, organize it? Because they are things people can and do make money off of. When there's demand... someone will fill in the void to supply it.

I'm from the more minarchistic viewpoint than a fully anarchistic one... so I would still like to see an entity to enforce laws against force, violence, and theft. Beyond that, there's nothing that can't be handled through free market and arbitration... government violence is not necessary except in self defense.

Life is short... being completely free from government theft and threat of violence should not be a privilege.

The attention span around here is..
    ....oh look, a squirrel!


but, then again, this is a thread about pot.   

xsanguine wrote:

  



What is it about roads, electricity, and gas infrastructure that is only possibly run by a government?

You do realize that private toll roads existed previous to the freeway monopoly, correct? I'm definitely interested to hear why you believe electricity and gas are only providable by government entities. Although, even now, in our highly regulated mixed economy, private contractors do the bulk of work... government just finances it (through threat of violence and theft) and, in many cases, provides the tools for monopoly (a government enforced one or becomes one themselves

Why do I think any of this would be around without a govt to regulate, organize it? Because they are things people can and do make money off of. When there's demand... someone will fill in the void to supply it.

I'm from the more minarchistic viewpoint than a fully anarchistic one... so I would still like to see an entity to enforce laws against force, violence, and theft. Beyond that, there's nothing that can't be handled through free market and arbitration... government violence is not necessary except in self defense.

Life is short... being completely free from government theft and threat of violence should not be a privilege.

One reason government steps in is because the private sector isn't getting it done. There wasn't enough of a market to make up for the cost of providing electricity to rural areas, so we got FDR's Rural Electrification Act - and it was successful and popular.

I have no idea how you think anything close to a highway system would've been built without Eisenhower's big government interstate project. It sure wasn't getting done before Ike came along. But he got it done and we continue to benefit.

It's interesting to see that you're now in favor of government law enforcement. Keep in mind that it necessarily comes with a threat of violence, and it does require money from the citizens.

The Free Market Jesus that you pray to can only do so much, and the welfare and protection of the general public are not his concern - in fact, they often run contrary to his interests. When they do, his interests will win every time.

What it comes down to is a new revenue source that does much more than pay for itself. Politicians of all stripes are far too undisciplined and far too lacking in morals to just leave that alone.

In Grand Rapids, there used to be a special millage to fund road repairs that weren't able to be done with the already in place state funding via MDOT (thanks Detroit and Kwame) or federal funds.

So years ago they passed another, local, dedicated millage to fill the gap. Then, they simply didn't use the funds for roads (the city council diverted money to other areas), and let the roads get bad enough that a 2nd dedicated, local millage passed at the ballot a couple months ago.

Keep in mind, this is the 3rd time the government has collected taxes for the same roads, which still suck (although, I will grant you they are working on some of them).

That is government in a nutshell. Ineptitude of efficiency, and an inability to say no to constituents dictates that it will continue.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

One reason government steps in is because the private sector isn't getting it done.  There wasn't enough of a market to make up for the cost of providing electricity to rural areas, so we got FDR's Rural Electrification Act - and it was successful and popular.

I have no idea how you think anything close to a highway system would've been built without Eisenhower's big government interstate project.  It sure wasn't getting done before Ike came along.  But he got it done and we continue to benefit.

It's interesting to see that you're now in favor of government law enforcement.  Keep in mind that it necessarily comes with a threat of violence, and it does require money from the citizens.  

The Free Market Jesus that you pray to can only do so much, and the welfare and protection of the general public are not his concern - in fact, they often run contrary to his interests.  When they do, his interests will win every time.

Pervis, you've demonstrated that you either have a hard time understanding or purposely become difficult with anything that doesn't reveal itself as an absolute position. I've never been against law enforcement when it comes to things that violate the non-aggression principle, hence why I've mentioned numerous times why I lean towards a minarchistic society as opposed to anarchist. Now that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the ideals and the possible eventuality of a government-less law enforcement system... just that I don't personally view it as reasonable at this point in time. Response to violence is self defense, quite different from simply a "threat of violence" as you're trying to frame it (since it's convenient now).

You've also demonstrated that you're unwilling to see beyond the current landscape... apparently in order for my view to have any semblance of reality to you... I must demonstrate how this system could exist "from scratch" (time travel to 5,000 years ago). Rather than like how monarchy, the Republic, and even Democracy evolved... on the backs of previous civilizations and infrastructure.

As long as what the government is doing is popular... it means everyone is happy with what they now have to spend money on, whether they like it or not, amirite? If there isn't enough of a market to provide electricity to rural areas*, then why should a company be forced to supply... or why should individuals who do not live in that area have to subsidize them or else face punishment and violence?

(*so therefore everyone who is not in rural areas needs to pay, whether they like it or not, whether they agree or not, so that individuals who choose to live rurally can have their infrastructure paid for by those unwilling charities).

I think transportation should be funded by the individuals using those avenues the most. If companies see a way to cut down their transport costs and time, they will invest money in order to do that. As much as you complain that normal citizens have to foot the bill for corporations... you seem to champion the very things that corporations do with regards to having their projects funded... I suppose you think the citizens should support, through taxpayer money, sports stadiums so that the rich billionaires that own it don't have to invest their own money into?

Free Market Jesus? We've never had a free market, Pervis, so where are these examples of a failed one you keep referring to?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Xsanguine has a religious belief in a world without government.  In that world, everyone would choose to be nice and respectful.  In the unlikely event that anyone did anything that others found objectionable, the rest of society would shun the wrongdoer.  However, xsanguine wouldn't want to start it from scratch; he'd want his no-government world to start with the conveniences already created...by government.

Sort of like not collecting baseball cards is a hobby, right? Then some red herring, purposely displaying a highly erroneous version of my anti-political views.... and then what I find interesting;

"Wouldn't want to start it from scratch... he'd want his no-government world to start with the conveniences already created... by government."

Kind of like how America's constitutional democracy didn't start from scratch, but from the infrastructure created through a monarchy... or basically any other style of governance. Explain this to me, Pervis... in order to go in a different direction, politically or otherwise... do we need to nuke the entire landscape so as to start from scratch? This is puzzling, especially coming from you.... sounds like something madhatter or lars/compound would insist on.

Out of all the things you take issue with regarding my views... this is the strangest one and I'm still trying to understand what point you believe you're making?

xsanguine wrote:

Pervis, you've demonstrated that you either have a hard time understanding or purposely become difficult with anything that doesn't reveal itself as an absolute position. I've never been against law enforcement when it comes to things that violate the non-aggression principle, hence why I've mentioned numerous times why I lean towards a minarchistic society as opposed to anarchist. Now that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the ideals and the possible eventuality of a government-less law enforcement system... just that I don't personally view it as reasonable at this point in time. Response to violence is self defense, quite different from simply a "threat of violence" as you're trying to frame it (since it's convenient now).

You've also demonstrated that you're unwilling to see beyond the current landscape... apparently in order for my view to have any semblance of reality to you... I must demonstrate how this system could exist "from scratch" (time travel to 5,000 years ago). Rather than like how monarchy, the Republic, and even Democracy evolved... on the backs of previous civilizations and infrastructure.

As long as what the government is doing is popular... it means everyone is happy with what they now have to spend money on, whether they like it or not, amirite? If there isn't enough of a market to provide electricity to rural areas*, then why should a company be forced to supply... or why should individuals who do not live in that area have to subsidize them or else face punishment and violence?

(*so therefore everyone who is not in rural areas needs to pay, whether they like it or not, whether they agree or not, so that individuals who choose to live rurally can have their infrastructure paid for by those unwilling charities).

I think transportation should be funded by the individuals using those avenues the most. If companies see a way to cut down their transport costs and time, they will invest money in order to do that. As much as you complain that normal citizens have to foot the bill for corporations... you seem to champion the very things that corporations do with regards to having their projects funded... I suppose you think the citizens should support, through taxpayer money, sports stadiums so that the rich billionaires that own it don't have to invest their own money into?

Free Market Jesus? We've never had a free market, Pervis, so where are these examples of a failed one you keep referring to?

I'm not looking for an absolute position; in fact, I'm glad you've tempered yours. Not long ago, your idea to keep behavior at its best was for society to agree to shun wrongdoers for acts that not all of society would agree were wrong. It's good to see that you realize It's an obviously unworkable system.

As for highways built only by the private sector, that's also unworkable. You'd have to own the land to build the highway - so a company trying to ship goods across the country would have to buy land from coast to coast, or partner with other companies. If you accomplished that, you'd get to prevent every competitor from using your road - forcing them to buy land and build their own roads. But they wouldn't be able to build a road that intersected yours, because you and your partners would own that land. And if an entity owned a road that bisected the country north to south, no competitor would be able to get goods to the other side without going through Canada or Mexico, smuggling them, or using air travel - which would be pretty dangerous without the FAA. And imagine how complicated a cross-country drive would be for an individual, paying tolls everywhere you went and possibly being searched for smuggling the competition's goods.

I bring scenarios like that up with you, and your answer consistently relies on faith that nobody would ever try to get the biggest advantage they could get. That's why I call your belief religious: despite all evidence to the contrary, you cling to those views.

Washington D.C. and Oregon follow suit with the legalization of Marijuana. If you're a Democrat in either of those places, you can chase your blues away by getting high tonight.