Arizona Does It Again

[tnek]

Why the call to tax it? Why must everything that some people dislike or don't use be subjected to over regulation and taxation? Should ammo be subject to taxation? Targets? How about twinkies or a soda? Maybe we could add more taxes to alcohol (somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50% of the cost of a bottle of bourbon is taxes). I say legalise it an get government out of the equation entirely. Don't use it as another source of revenue for an entity that is already cancerous in its growth and presence.

Your point is well taken but you know as well as I that is the only way it will happen. If ever. Plus the politicians and gooberment will find it more apealing to push.

 

[mrjarrell]

Thats a good point, but I liken it to alcohol promoting relaxation. It isnt a medicine either. Marijuana is a drug used to get high, anyone who says it isnt is either lying or they simply dont know anything about it. Getting high on that drug may have some positive effects for people with diseases, but so might cocaine - maybe some one has sore gums?

I say legalize it all the way. Let people get high if they want. Its really not all that bad for humans. Its no more unhealthy than cigarettes or fast food. It isnt even close to as harmful as alcohol. Many who use it attest to its positive spiritual effects and such. And hey, if you have headaches, go ahead and smoke a joint if you want.

The part I'm against is putting all the legal restrictions around it - thats just more government telling humans what they can and cant do. I guess thats the part I'm really against.

Alcohol is a medicine, applied topically for the most part. Red wine has been proven to promote healthy benefits and some studies have shown that beers have many healthy benefits in moderation.
Many drugs have a euphoric effect when used, but that doesn't discount their effectiveness as a medicine. Plenty of people misuse opiates, but that doesn't meant there's anything wrong with them when it comes to pain relief. Making an argument against the use of a substance medically doesn't help the argument for complete legalisation, (which I'm for). It just gives opponents ammunition for their side.

 

[OAK]

Why the call to tax it? Why must everything that some people dislike or don't use be subjected to over regulation and taxation? Should ammo be subject to taxation? Targets? How about twinkies or a soda? Maybe we could add more taxes to alcohol (somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50% of the cost of a bottle of bourbon is taxes). I say legalise it an get government out of the equation entirely. Don't use it as another source of revenue for an entity that is already cancerous in its growth and presence.

Think of the revenue from taxing legal marijuana, better schooling, roads, less taxes. I'm not saying tax marijuana if it is use for medical reasons. If it was made legal for general public use I'd say tax the hell out of it, there is quite a bit of tax on alcohol. Why not marijuana?

 

[mrjarrell]

Think of the revenue from taxing legal marijuana, better schooling, roads, less taxes. I'm not saying tax marijuana if it is use for medical reasons. If it was made legal for general public use I'd say tax the hell out of it, there is quite a bit of tax on alcohol. Why not marijuana?

Taxes give more power to government and allow it to continue its cancerous spread. Maybe you like government, but the majority of folks I know despise it. Some view it as a "necessary evil" and many of us just view it as evil. If it were legalised everyone would be able to grow their own...do you want yet another taxing authority able to come on your land and steal the product of you work? I really don't understand people who like taxes. It's anti-liberty at best and pro-big government at its worst.

 

[OAK]

Taxes give more power to government and allow it to continue its cancerous spread. Maybe you like government, but the majority of folks I know despise it. Some view it as a "necessary evil" and many of us just view it as evil. If it were legalised everyone would be able to grow their own...do you want yet another taxing authority able to come on your land and steal the product of you work? I really don't understand people who like taxes. It's anti-liberty at best and pro-big government at its worst.

The people of the United States will be taxed from the day their born to the day they die. It's the way it's been and forever shall be... If you don't like it:
1). Start a religion
2). Become Amish
3). GTFO
4). Say "Screw the Government" and not pay taxes then loose your assets.
5). Move to Delaware to avoid state tax

Surely you pay taxes now? How could you turn down a tax cut? If marijuana was legal and taxed there is a potential that less money would come out of your and my paycheck.

I'm not pro-tax by any means, but if we didn't have taxes who takes care of military, schools, hospital funding?

Charitable donors?

 

[mrjarrell]

How could you turn down a tax cut? If marijuana was legal and taxed there is a potential that less money would come out of your and my paycheck.

I'm not pro-tax by any means, but if we didn't have taxes who takes care of military, schools, hospital funding?

Talk about living in the land of sunshine, lollipops and unicorns. I can't recall an instance...ever...where the government has lowered one tax after imposing another. It's not going to happen and anyone believing it will is delusional at best. I posit that you are pro tax, by your own calling for taxation in order to legalise something. If you want to see something legalised just call for it to be legalised and leave more taxation off the table. You'd probably be OK with a tax on ammo or additional taxes on guns if it meant they'd let you exercise your rights.
As for funding things...hospitals work just fine in the private sector with no taxes, I have no problem removing all taxes attached to any hospital and totally privatising them. Ditto the schools. As for the military, they can do with a lot less money than they currently get and that can be raised without taxation. The government draws enough interest and funding from businesses, stocks and land sales and leases that they could fund a reasonable military without levying any taxes on individuals or businesses. We got along just fine without an income tax for over 100 years, we can do it again, as long as we cut out the cancer and downsize government to its intended size.
No new taxes. It's long past the time we gave up trade offs.

 

[OAK]

Talk about living in the land of sunshine, lollipops and unicorns. I can't recall an instance...ever...where the government has lowered one tax after imposing another. It's not going to happen and anyone believing it will is delusional at best. I posit that you are pro tax, by your own calling for taxation in order to legalise something. If you want to see something legalised just call for it to be legalised and leave more taxation off the table. You'd probably be OK with a tax on ammo or additional taxes on guns if it meant they'd let you exercise your rights.
As for funding things...hospitals work just fine in the private sector with no taxes, I have no problem removing all taxes attached to any hospital and totally privatising them. Ditto the schools. As for the military, they can do with a lot less money than they currently get and that can be raised without taxation. The government draws enough interest and funding from businesses, stocks and land sales and leases that they could fund a reasonable military without levying any taxes on individuals or businesses. We got along just fine without an income tax for over 100 years, we can do it again, as long as we cut out the cancer and downsize government to its intended size.
No new taxes. It's long past the time we gave up trade offs.

I did say potential for tax break?!?

Ya I guess you see it as "The Lesser" 10% fighting in our military so F' it let's give them less, they're saftey doesn't constitute my own! I love it how you seem to be "Goverment EvIl" "People GoOd" Your politics are that of someone who has watched SLC Punk countless times! It sounds good, it looks good, it just doesn't work! Talk about living in a land of unicorns!

When you privitize anything it allows a company to step in name their own price, and create a free market. It's great but not when it comes to education. Students in rural enviroments will not receive as good as an education as those in non-rural enviroments. Why is that? It would equate to student population=funding, bigger school=higher funding, or it could go higher cost=less population. So would all student be taught the same? How could they?

So the poor need not to go to hosipitals because how could they afford to become sick? With the privatization of hospitals if you have money you go to whatever hospital you could afford, so there would be lower class hospitals, middle class hospitals and upper class hospitals. Your health would only be as good as your money. Great idea!

Ya the government must be making a ton with land sales, stock ect.... Figuring were still in a deficit.





Wait I GOT IT!

No more taxes ever!

We all work together on creating products and resources we sell these products overseas take what we made and distribute it through the masses... Golly I know it would work!

 

[mk2ja]

OAK and Mr. Jarrell,

I know that neither of you are idiots, so don't take this the wrong way. But I would like to recommend you guys check out Glenn Beck's book Arguing With Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government. One chapter is especially relevant to your present discussion; chapter three is on education and advocates getting the government out of education. It points out that the Department of Education is a completely unconstitutional institution and highlights statistics comparing test scores from rural areas and highly urban areas. Furthermore, it provides anecdotal evidence that high taxes and spending don't correlate to better performance. Unfortunately, I only have the "audio book", so I can't look up the specific things he wrote very easily.

Ah! I just got to the part... so here's what it says.

In the US, we spend 4x more money per student now than in the 1960s. The extra money has demonstrably not led to an increase in performance.

Lets compare some states' numbers here. "New York spends the most money per student — $14,884 — while Utah spends the least per student — $5,437. New York slightly beats UT in grade 4 reading and grade 8 reading and math. But, Utah still scores above the US average in all 4 categories."

If it was all about the money, states like NY and NJ, the two with highest spending, should have scores well above states like UT and ID, the two with the lowest spending.. but this isn't the case. "Why? Because it's not that schools don't have enough money; it's that they're forced by politicians, lobbyists, and special interests to spend it in ways that don't further their primary goals."

For more... read the book! I'm tired of being a little scribe!

Point is - the government needs to butt-out when it comes to education. I strongly recommend you read (or listen to) Beck's book for very convincing arguments.

 

[rambone]

I did say potential for tax break?!?

I think what mrjarrell is saying is that with the addition of a new tax, no other taxes will be reduced in any way, schools will not improve, services will not get better, etc.

The new tax will just be used to create some brand new positions that we will have to pay for forever. So a new tax means bigger government.

 

[mk2ja]

I think what mrjarrell is saying is that with the addition of a new tax, no other taxes will be reduced in any way, schools will not improve, services will not get better, etc.

The new tax will just be used to create some brand new positions that we will have to pay for forever. So a new tax means bigger government.

That's another concept Beck wrote about. That's always the way it goes. One example he gave was the alcohol tax in Johnstown, PA specifically to help the residents recover from a devastating flood... 50 years later, the tax that was called "temporary" at the time is not only still active, but has been hiked twice.

 

[Prometheus]

If marijuana was legal and taxed there is a potential that less money would come out of your and my paycheck.

In theory... however that is never the case. Lottery money?

I'm not pro-tax by any means, but if we didn't have taxes who takes care of military, schools, hospital funding?

I'm not sure many people will argue against funding those things, however funding welfare/wic/foodstamps/hud housing/electric/gas....

We stop the wealth distribution and then we can talk.

Until then, we slash and burn ALL taxes.

Let the masses choose between police and butter. Let them decide if Fire departments get cut before government cheese.

F' them all. I've had it with this "tax abc more than xyz". It is B.S. I've had enough.