Quatloos!

How your favorite revenue collector is looking to new sources of taxation.

I wonder if it's a matter of someone wanting to show, in the words of Molly Ivins, that they are "tuff on crime", and of someone looking for a good sound bite rather than trying to actually think about the ramifications of what they are doing.

This isn't the first case where CI used the "no deductions for illegal drugs" law, but most don't get publicized. Now that MM is getting clinical use, I'm interested in how this plays out.

When the IRS seized the Mustang Ranch, did they run it until it was disposed of? If they seize Harborside, will the IRS sell drugs?

That's a wonderful idea. The second the IRS takes over operations, every single supplier will vanish. Why sell an "illegal" product to the government which can turn around and arrest you?

Perhaps a better idea would be to legalize and regulate pot and tax it -- just like alcohol.

An immediate large victory in the "war on drugs" and a fairly large step towards taking a bite out of the defecit.

How about the same thing with powder cocaine, too?

But not crack or heroin, since they're used by those people.

We're still living in a country established by people who fled religious persecution so they could establish their own form of religious persecution.

Gregg wrote:We're still living in a country established by people who fled religious persecution so they could establish their own form of religious persecution.

Could you please explain how use of cocaine or heroin is a form of religious worship?

Otherwise the belief that prosecuting people for crimes is somehow tied to Puritanism could seriously undermine all the laws we have in this country for dealing with crime. After all, the Puritans were against theft, murder, and lying based on their upholding of the Ten Commandments - so we should be getting rid of the laws covering those areas?

And whether we legalize the use of cocaine or heroin, we are still going to have to deal with the ill effects of its abuse - which include theft, lying and murder.

I don't recall saying that the use of cocaine or heroin is some form of religious worship.

My point is that this country still has many laws in place to prevent sinning -- at least sinning in the eyes of the Puritan mentality.

Only recently were most blanket 'blue laws' (prohibiting most retail trade on Sunday) repealed, but there are still many jurisdictions which prohibit the sale (either at retail or for on-site consumption) on Sunday.

Demon alcohol was ineffective prohibited for a while for very little reason other than it was immoral.

Pot, cocaine, and heroin could be legalized and controlled. Other countries have done it with fairly good levels of success.

As to the ""ill effects of its abuse - which include theft, lying and murder" -- if they were legally available, the prices would plummet taking with them the need for criminal actw to support their purchase.

A violent, underground economy would cease to exist almost overnight. Why would gangs continue to battle over drug-selling turf when their customers could walk into a pharmacy and buy a better product at a lower price.

As to some of the other effects of legalizing these drugs, compare them with alcohol. Just because it's legal doesn't prevent its abuse along with some verious serious results. But, the problems associated with it being illegal for a while were significantly worse than they are now.

But, the use of drugs is a sin and can not be tolerated.

oldnikki wrote:My point is that this country still has many laws in place to prevent sinning -- at least sinning in the eyes of the Puritan mentality.

And it is a bad point. The laws weren't enacted merely because drug abuse was seen as a sin. Prior to the laws' enactment, opium and cocaine use was not illegal in this country. But over time, it became readily apparent that the drugs were habit forming and destructive towards the users and the innocents that came into contact with them. And that has been the evidence throughout history when these drugs were used in other countries.

I just returned from Beijing, where we got endless history lessons on the causes and evils of the two Opium Wars that ended up destroying Chinese society and left it underfoot of Western society. Far from Puritans, the Chinese understand the implications of what opium abuse did to their society. For where in Bengal, where the British exported opium, the use was merely chewed or snorted, the Chinese users smoked opium and received a much more intensive ingestion of the drug. In the end, the Chinese government had to accept the import of opium, thus legalizing it. And then had to accept the decay and rot of their society and government.

oldnikki wrote:Pot, cocaine, and heroin could be legalized and controlled. Other countries have done it with fairly good levels of success.

"Fairly" is one of those qualifiers. The Netherlands tried it with allowing public use of heroin, but soon realized that any legalization along those lines was counterproductive and was only contributing to the increasing crime wave. They ended up reversing the law on that.

China's method? Death sentence for any possession of an illicit drug over an ounce. Results? No drug abuse in the country other than the occasional idiot that thinks they can get away with it.

oldnikki wrote:As to the ""ill effects of its abuse - which include theft, lying and murder" -- if they were legally available, the prices would plummet taking with them the need for criminal actw to support their purchase.

Wrong. Regardless of what the price would be, the effect would be the same if not worse. Cheaper drug prices means that the user can indulge their habit more frequently, thus resulting in achieving addiction that much sooner. And with addiction, they will run out of money, lose their jobs and property, be unable to be productive and functional. So in the end, they will have to turn to crime in order to satisfy their addiction.

People who keep thinking that drugs like heroin and cocaine are "relatively" harmless if the street price is low are in complete denial about the real effects of these drugs.

The Observer wrote:People who keep thinking that drugs like heroin and cocaine are "relatively" harmless if the street price is low are in complete denial about the real effects of these drugs.

I was a public defender in the South Bronx during the crack epidemic of the early 80's. While the issue of appropriate drug laws is a complex one - certainly including the collateral damage that prohibition causes - Observer is undeniably correct.

wserra wrote:

The Observer wrote:People who keep thinking that drugs like heroin and cocaine are "relatively" harmless if the street price is low are in complete denial about the real effects of these drugs.

I was a public defender in the South Bronx during the crack epidemic of the early 80's. While the issue of appropriate drug laws is a complex one - certainly including the collateral damage that prohibition causes - Observer is undeniably correct.

I agree with that statement, although we could still argue whether, if legalized, the benefits of reduced organized crime would exceed the damage caused by increased drug use. However, because organized crime is, well, organized, laws reducing their effectiveness is unlikely to occur, except, sometimes, by referendum, even if there were a clear benefit to society.

I may be seriously wrong on things that I believe, and if I am, sorry, please correct me.

But here goes.....

My problem with Medical Marijuana is that as far as I can see, alot of the medical part is a joke. And I don't live in California so I really don't know, but it seems to me like a lot of the "sickness" is some vague "depression cause I can't get high". That may be real or just perception, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks like that, and true or not the perception doesn't do much to help the people who are genuinely sick and really benefit from proper use. My stereotype MM patient is still Kevin Nealon on Weeds and not a cancer patient. I've always wondered why THC cannot be made in a tablet in a lab where there is some semblance of quality control instead of being grown in designer brands in hydroponic basement farms by old hippies. (and I may be wrong about that, too, I'm not a botanist)

In short, I really don't have a problem with anyone getting a medicine, what I'm opposed to is what looks to me like a tax protester type word play that actually worked and for every sick person there's a VW Busload of OWS types just getting high. And I'm kind of disturbed by the concept of a state referendum to legalize something against a federal law and the federal government not enforcing it either from indifference or it being impractical because of local opposition. What happens when enough nutcases take over North Dakota and pass a law against income tax there? Or (and this really happened) when Ohio allows a referendum on the ballot to make it illegal for the Obama Health Care laws from being enforced in Ohio? What about when they pass a ballot issue against something YOU care about? And I don't really care so much about any of those issues, but I do care about the concept of Federalism.

Gregg wrote: I've always wondered why THC cannot be made in a tablet in a lab where there is some semblance of quality control instead of being grown in designer brands in hydroponic basement farms by old hippies. (and I may be wrong about that, too, I'm not a botanist)

THC has been made into a tablet form. However, most of the patients found it not as effective as when they smoked a joint. From what I understand, smoking/inhaling any drug is about the best and quickest way to ensure that it gets into the bloodstream to the brain in the most purest form. That is why opium and cocaine are at their best (worst in terms of addiction) in delivering an effective high when they are smoked. Thus, the effect that THC has for cancer patients is to reduce the pain and nausea is much better taken through the lungs rather than swallowing a tablet.

The Observer wrote:China's method? Death sentence for any possession of an illicit drug over an ounce. Results? No drug abuse in the country other than the occasional idiot that thinks they can get away with it.

That would work for spitting on the sidewalk too, though I think that you'll find that those rules don't apply to all of the social classes in China...

The Observer wrote:

oldnikki wrote:My point is that this country still has many laws in place to prevent sinning -- at least sinning in the eyes of the Puritan mentality.

And it is a bad point. The laws weren't enacted merely because drug abuse was seen as a sin. Prior to the laws' enactment, opium and cocaine use was not illegal in this country. But over time, it became readily apparent that the drugs were habit forming and destructive towards the users and the innocents that came into contact with them. And that has been the evidence throughout history when these drugs were used in other countries.

Actually many of the early drug laws were founded in racism. Opium/Chinese, Marijuana/Mexicans, Heroin/Blacks. If I recall it wasn't until drugs hit the youth culture of the sixties that there was a big push to ban narcotics in general.

The exception of course was alcohol, which WAS banned to prevent sinning. The big push behind prohibition was not the Secular Society Against Socially Harmful Bad Habits, but various religious groups preaching the sin of Demon Rum.

Brandybuck wrote:My point is that this country still has many laws in place to prevent sinning -- at least sinning in the eyes of the Puritan mentality.

And it is a bad point. The laws weren't enacted merely because drug abuse was seen as a sin. Prior to the laws' enactment, opium and cocaine use was not illegal in this country. But over time, it became readily apparent that the drugs were habit forming and destructive towards the users and the innocents that came into contact with them. And that has been the evidence throughout history when these drugs were used in other countries.[/quote]
Actually many of the early drug laws were founded in racism. Opium/Chinese, Marijuana/Mexicans, Heroin/Blacks. If I recall it wasn't until drugs hit the youth culture of the sixties that there was a big push to ban narcotics in general.

The exception of course was alcohol, which WAS banned to prevent sinning. The big push behind prohibition was not the Secular Society Against Socially Harmful Bad Habits, but various religious groups preaching the sin of Demon Rum.[/quote]

As I recall, many of the early drug laws arose out of a perception that evil (insert your minority race of choice here)s were using the drugs to render white women helpless to resist their seductions.

Cathulhu wrote:This isn't the first case where CI used the "no deductions for illegal drugs" law, but most don't get publicized. Now that MM is getting clinical use, I'm interested in how this plays out.

Patients Mutual Assistance Collective Corporation (d.b.a. Harborside Health Center) petitioned the Tax Court in response to the Notice of Deficiency. For those who follow this kind of thing, the action will be at Docket No.: 029212-11

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/USTCDockInq/ ... o=11029212

The Observer wrote:People who keep thinking that drugs like heroin and cocaine are "relatively" harmless if the street price is low are in complete denial about the real effects of these drugs.

Two words: Whitney Houston. And those were probably already legal.

Any controlled substance is dangerous, whether with a prescription or not. And the illicit drug game just gets more dangerous now that we are in the age of designer drugs. The street chemists, learning how to substitute a molecule here or there, have increased the potency, addiction and the high in these drugs and thereby increased their earnings.

China was immensely impacted by the wave of opium that hit its shores in the 18th and 19th centuries. I can only imagine in dread what the drugs of today are going to do to Western culture.

Is the true threat the drugs themselves or the control of the suply of the drugs?

The Observer wrote:

Gregg wrote: I've always wondered why THC cannot be made in a tablet in a lab where there is some semblance of quality control instead of being grown in designer brands in hydroponic basement farms by old hippies. (and I may be wrong about that, too, I'm not a botanist)

THC has been made into a tablet form. However, most of the patients found it not as effective as when they smoked a joint. From what I understand, smoking/inhaling any drug is about the best and quickest way to ensure that it gets into the bloodstream to the brain in the most purest form. That is why opium and cocaine are at their best (worst in terms of addiction) in delivering an effective high when they are smoked. Thus, the effect that THC has for cancer patients is to reduce the pain and nausea is much better taken through the lungs rather than swallowing a tablet.

You understand correctly. I wonder if similar results could be achieved by making THC in an inhaler, either in aerosol or inhaled powder form.