black-market

OMG! Where is the SWAT to erradicate the obvious evil-doers and save us from ourselves?

Not to fear, they are near.

SWAT juat captured and charged two suspects in the death of two Oklahoma men found dead in a burning pickup last year in northeast Weld County, Colorado.

And Experts praise the SWAT response to Planned Parenthood shooting in Colorado Springs.

Oh, don’t get started pouring on the accolades … for I can go on all night.

I leave you with with this, for your listening pleasure: S.W.A.T theme song.

You just have to Click, then sit back and enjoy.

The drug dealers were spending the money they received from selling black-market pot on fancy cars, flashy clothes and numerous other lavish items … on which they PAID taxes.

And legal dealers will also spend their proceeds in taxable ways - leaving the legal market still taxed one more time than the illegal market.

When someone sells your kids some heroin and ruins their life.

This thread is about pot - but I'll take this opportunity to note that only in a legal regulated market can age restrictions be effectively enforced, which is why as a national average kids for years have reported that they can get pot more easily than beer or cigarettes.

As for me I think Heroin dealers should be shot and killed.

I think the right way to go is to first legalize only pot, and see if that leaves us with a war on drugs we can actually win.

The drug dealers were spending the money they received from selling black-market pot on fancy cars, flashy clothes and numerous other lavish items … on which they PAID taxes.

And legal dealers will also spend their proceeds in taxable ways - leaving the legal market still taxed one more time than the illegal market.

But that does NOT create more money ... the same amount of money is still changing hands in circulation.

It has been a couple years now since Colorado started to allow people to sell and buy pot legally. Last year, Colorado brought in $53 million in taxes as a result. Nowhere is it stated that $53 million is above and beyond the taxes they normally receive. It is to be noted that the state fell far short of it $70 projection.

“Publik skool math” shows that even if the $70 million projection is met, that's still mere drop in the bucket when considering the state's total budget of $27 billion. Yet the potheads are still promoting what a wonderful windfall pot sales are producing in taxes.

Shameful … just shameful.

Est-ce pas droit … is this not right ?

But that does NOT create more money

Who said it did? It creates one more opportunity to tax.

Last year, Colorado brought in $53 million in taxes as a result. Nowhere is it stated that $53 million is above and beyond the taxes they normally receive.

Feel free to present evidence that there was a corresponding drop in other tax revenues.

It is to be noted that the state fell far short of it $70 projection.

“Publik skool math” shows that even if the $70 million projection is met, that's still mere drop in the bucket when considering the state's total budget of $27 billion.

All irrelevant to your stupid and rebutted claim that it was a wash. Poor you.

I thank you for your time, and I wish you a most pleasant evening …

I find nowhere in the New Testament that we should cage those who inebriate themselves.

Should Christians Support the ‘War on Drugs’?

life is about choices... FREE WILL God gave us free will... but is it really free will when free will doesn't come with punative results for poor free will choices?

Now, this is where a libtard like you does what libtards do... make conservatives out to Be heartless and psychotic. Oldest libtard trick in the book

"I leave you with with this, for your listening pleasure: S.W.A.T theme song."

Now THIS is a theme song:

"The drug dealers were spending the money they received from selling black-market pot on fancy cars, flashy clothes and numerous other lavish items … on which they PAID taxes."

They paid taxes on the purchase, correct. PLUS, some of that money goes to pay for the wages (and taxes) of the people who work at the store. And some of that money goes to pay corporate taxes.

People fail to realize that the consumer pays all the taxes the government receives. They're just hidden.

"The suit is going nowhere"

Should it go nowhere? Don't the citizens of Nebraska and Oklahoma have a valid point? Don't they have a right to protect their children from drugs crossing from an adjacent state?

If noxious smoke was drifting from Colorado to other states, must that be allowed also? What about factories dumping pollutants into rivers that flow to other states?

We can stop that behavior but not drugs?

One article touts that Colorado had a $53 million dollar increase in taxes off the sale of legalize marijuana.

Legalization proponents consider that to be “found money.” To that, I say … bullshit.

They fail to consider that hospitalizations involving patients with marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 to 2,413 per 100,000.

So what Colorado is really doing, it is “stealing” $53 million from insurance companies, Medicare and Medicate for their increased costs to cover the radical increase in those hospitalizations.

Money is not being created, it is just changing hands … robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The dullard didn't even read the article he posted.

And the two states are already moving to join a pending suit in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Nebraska and Oklahoma should be able to stop the flow of an illegal drug from Colorado into their states.

And the two states are already moving to join a pending suit in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Continue to hammer Colorado with lawsuits ... fire with both barrels.

They fail to consider that hospitalizations involving patients with marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 to 2,413 per 100,000.

Dr. Andrew Monte, a toxicologist at the Department of Emergency Medicine at the University of Colorado, said he's not surprised to see an increase of hospital and ER visits related to marijuana use.

"When the availability of any drug goes up," you see more hospital visits, said Monte, who was not involved in the new study. "That goes for a new high blood pressure drug to marijuana."

Monte, who co-wrote a paper in the New England Journal of Medicine on marijuana tourism in February, said there are usually three reasons people come to the ER after using marijuana. He said in his experience, people come in for treatment if they exacerbate underlying symptoms with the drug, for example, irritating their lungs if they have asthma, for cyclic vomiting related to high concentrations of THC ingestion and general intoxication from marijuana.

The smallest group is made up of "people who come in intoxicated," Monte said. "We only see one or two for marijuana intoxication. I would say disproportionately we see edible agents lead to more intoxication."

From above :“In the short run, there have been a lot fewer public safety and health issues than the governor feared in the beginning,” said Freedman, who is often referred to as the state’s marijuana czar. “In the beginning, we had problems with edibles and hash oil fires but now, for the most part, Colorado looks a lot like it did before legalization.”

"Even though SCOTUS declined to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska's pot suit against Colorado, the plaintiff states can still take their case to U.S. District Court"

The dullard didn't even read the article he posted.

Did I say "has reached the end of the road" or did I say "is going nowhere", dullard and coward?

hospitalizations involving patients with marijuana exposures and diagnoses increased from approximately 803 per 100,000 to 2,413 per 100,000.

"determine if the visit indicated possible marijuana exposure or used a diagnosis /billing code indicating marijuana. Use of these codes does not mean that the visit is motivated by marijuana exposure but simply that it is a possibility." [emphasis added] - cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/...rts/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf

Should it go nowhere?

Yes: "A decision in the Plaintiff States’ favor will hinder Colorado’s ability to channel demand for recreational marijuana into a regulated and monitored market. This is more likely to aggravate, rather than subdue, the cross-border trafficking on which the Plaintiff States’ allegations of injury rest. The Plaintiff States seek to invalidate only those laws that enable Colorado to regulate the supply side of its recreational marijuana market. Compl. at 28–29 (seeking invalidation of only COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, §§ 16(4) and (5) and related statutes and regulations, which authorize marijuana-related facilities and empower the State to strictly regulate them). They do not challenge Colorado’s authority to legalize marijuana generally, nor do they seek an order compelling Colorado law enforcement officials to take any particular actions against marijuana traffickers. They in fact disclaim any intent to do so: “Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.” Br. in Supp. at 15." - coag.gov/sites/default/fi...usbriefoppositionneok.pdf

"Did I say "has reached the end of the road" or did I say "is going nowhere",

Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?

Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?

Of course - one can be in motion without getting any closer to one's desired destination.

"A decision in the Plaintiff States’ favor will hinder Colorado’s ability to channel demand for recreational marijuana into a regulated and monitored market."

That's the problem. Colorado is NOT channeling demand for recreational marijuana into a regulated and monitored market.

If Colorado is unable, or unwilling, to regulate it's own industries to the point where it's negatively impacting other states, then that right to regulate should be removed.

"one can be in motion without getting any closer to one's desired destination."

I agree. Now, back to my question. What's the difference between "has reached the end of the road" and "is going nowhere"?

Use of these codes does not mean that the visit is motivated by marijuana exposure but simply that it is a possibility."

Right. (Wink...Wink)

It more of a POSSIBLITY they all had ingrown toenails. (Snicker).

Of course - one can be in motion without getting any closer to one's desired destination.

Being in motion means one hasn't reached the end of the road; not getting any closer to one's desired destination means one is going nowhere.

If Colorado is unable, or unwilling, to regulate it's own industries to the point where it's negatively impacting other states, then that right to regulate should be removed.

So unregulated legal pot will less negatively impact other states?

Marijuana is made legal … hospital visits increase fourfold … and we are suppose to believe that the increase in the hospital visits has no correlation with marijuana being made legal, but maybe with ingrown toenails.

Marijuana "exposure" doesn't mean the visit was in any way caused by marijuana - oxygen "exposure" is at 100% for hospital/ER visits.

Right ... Sure.

Got it.

Oh, BTW - how many people are admitted to the hospitals from "exposure" to oxygen?

hospital visits increase fourfold

What's funny and ridiculous is that you think this is what the report said.

how many people are admitted to the hospitals from "exposure" to oxygen?

Not "from" - "with". And I already told you the answer: 100%.

did I say "is going nowhere"

It has already gone to another court.

Nice foot shot.

Continue to hammer Colorado with lawsuits ... fire with both barrels.

Obama enforces federal law differently in different states as the potheads cheer him on.

It has already gone to another court.

Where it will continue to go nowhere.

"So unregulated legal pot will less negatively impact other states?"

I never said it should be unregulated. I said Colorado shouldn't regulate it because they've shown they're incapable.

go nowhere

consider source

Are you saying there's a difference between those two expressions?

His feelings.

I never said it should be unregulated.

That's where the suit would leave it - as I already quoted: 'They do not challenge Colorado’s authority to legalize marijuana generally, nor do they seek an order compelling Colorado law enforcement officials to take any particular actions against marijuana traffickers. They in fact disclaim any intent to do so: “Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”'

“Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion.”

Keep going, dullard.

Plaintiff States are not suggesting the CSA requires Colorado to criminalize marijuana or to strip Colorado authorities of prosecutorial discretion. Just that Colorado's affirmative authorization of the manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana presents a substantial obstacle to Congress's objectives under the CSA to establish a national, comprehensive, uniform and closed statutory scheme to control the market in controlled substances in order to prevent the abuse and diversion of those substances.

Keep going

That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit.

Colorado's affirmative authorization

That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot. Do try to keep up.

That's where the source I quoted stopped, halfwit.

Too dim to find and read the actual decision. So predictable.

"That is, their regulation of legal pot, whose end would leave unregulated (by Colorado) pot."

Colorado's regulation of pot legalized the manufacture, possession, and distribution of it. Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization and places marijuana under federal control.

Too dim to find and read the actual decision.

What "decision"?

Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization

Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such.

Colorado's regulation of pot legalized the manufacture, possession, and distribution of it. Ending Colorado's regulation of pot ends that legalization and places marijuana under federal control

Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level. It remains as illegal as ever.

Hypothetically, a President Trump could decide to enforce the Federal law and to withdraw any and all form of Federal benefits to renegade states, or perhaps the Federal government could charge, try, and convict the Governor for aiding, abetting, facilitating, or promoting the citizenry of Colorado in the violation of Federal laws.

That there is no State criminal statute against pot does not change the fact that there is a Federal statute that President Obama is failing to enforce. A different president may choose to fully enforce the Federal law. Or not.

"Actually, Colorado decriminalized pot at the state level. It remains as illegal as ever."

Nope. Colorado actually legalized it for those 21 and older. No penalties. You can grow it, buy it, smoke it, carry it around and give it to friends.

It is still, however, illegal at the federal level but Obama has said the DOJ will not enforce federal law in states that legalized marijuana for recreational or medical use.

Yes, Trump can change that policy. I hope he does. And I agree with you that the Governor of Colorado should be arrested and charged with sedition, along with anyone in the state legislature who voted for legalization.

"Wrong - ending regulation in no way implies re-establishing penalties, and the suit does not call for such."

Once again you're putting words in my mouth. Ending regulation ends the Colorado legalization program. The federal government would then be responsible for enforcing federal marijuana laws in Colorado. Colorado cannot be forced to enforce federal law. Nor can Colorado be forced to write state laws making marijuana illegal.

But then you'd have a free-for-all -- children smoking dope, cartels moving in and growing tons of it, dealers on every street corner.

You know what? I'm with you on this one. Colorado should NOT re-establish penalties. Let's see what REAL Libertarian freedom is like.