Comment Re:How long things take.. (Score 2) 222
No, not exaggerating, she codes, she sketches, she does a ton of stuff that should be done by people who specialise in it.
No, not exaggerating, she codes, she sketches, she does a ton of stuff that should be done by people who specialise in it.
How about I prove you wrong in such an embarrassing way that you will have to eat your words? I have that account because at some point I bought Rogers Internet service, and email was part of what I was buying in the package. Eventually Rogers outsourced their email to Yahoo!, so I have an email account that is paid for and that I never imagined would be handled by Yahoo! I am actually a paying customer, you dumb shit.
By now, every NE or OK, cop has some nice, labeled Colorado bud to plant on anyone who gives them trouble.
If they're doing it regularly it's just asking for an eventual FBI sting and ensuing shitstorm.
Also, Colorado should (if they don't already) have laws preventing the export of marijuana to other states where it is illegal. Want to grow for distribution in Colorado? Fine. Want to grow in the safety of Colorado to go profiteer in Nebraska? Jail.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think that would actually be illegal under the constitution. The states aren't allowed to get into trade wars with each other with prohibitions, taxes, duties, and such.
Yes, I know in this case that Nebraska doesn't want the stuff, but it's free to pass a general prohibition, it's not allowed to ban only weed from Colorado. Colorado isn't allowed to ban weed to Nebraska.
I think the difference here is that marijuana is illegal under federal law. It is not a law the states created, and so they are complaining about the disproportionate burden placed on them.
There's a really simple solution here: Do basically what Colorado did, and tell the feds that if they want to prohibit weed they can do it themselves.
but in Washington the legal weed costs about twice as much as what you'd find from a traditional dealer,
Yeah, when I saw the measures I said they were setting the tax too high. Part of the problem is higher expenses due to the Fed's threatening the banks and such.
but in practice, prohibitions against alcohol work just as well as prohibitions against pot - ie, not at all.
You want 'effective' dry counties, look towards Alaska. There are places that are pretty much only accessible by plane, and they have officers there that are almost like customs. They still get alcohol in there, but it's at a lot lower rate.
Down south, the only reason most counties are still 'dry' is a combination of:
1. Cronyism - the politicians are relatives/part owners of the alcohol stores located just outside of their jurisdiction
2. Temperance types - MAD types that are against any alcohol
3. NIMBY types - they're convinced that any change would be bad and that a liquor store would set up right next to them and draw drunks from counties over to their door step(despite the fact that the only reason they see lots of drunks at the store the next county over is all the people migrating from their county PLUS the drunks in the county the store is located in).
They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale.
And how much would that be? I know that federal statutes have rules in them where if you have more then X amount it's 'obvious' you intended to sell them, then lowered said amounts because the dealers simply started carrying less, stashing their stuff in small amounts. The only ones with large amounts were the mules. There are recorded cases of tolerant people where a week's worth of their habit busted those limits easily.
If you're an individual user driving the 200 miles from Denver to Scottsbluff, or the roughly 500 miles from Denver to Lincoln or Omaha, how much are you going to buy? Enough for a weekend, week, or are you going to consider buy months worth?
That being said, I'd rather see small scale dealers buying from Colorado than large scale drug gangs bringing it up from Mexico.
but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.
I think of it like red light cameras, the 2nd invasion of Iraq, and most political campaigns - the justification they will give for the action isn't necessarily their justification, but the justification they think YOU will care most about.
IE for red light cameras they'll advertise on safety, but to most planning boards they're trying to sell them to they'll talk revenue. Bush wanted to finish daddy's war, but talked chemical weapons to the world for allied assistance.
(When he ordered the first five rows of the Colosseum thrown into the arena, those were the ring side seats, filled with the rich and famous, which went down very well with the common man).
But he's a *populist* sociopath.
"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
Anatole France
Fantastic quote. Thank you for sharing - I'm sure I'll use it frequently.
mod me down some more, whitey!
No, they didn't. There were nobody before them in Americas.
There were three primary waves of migrations from Asia, each displacing the former. Pick up a history book sometime.
There's a gravity wave experiment in Poland looking at the simulation question. They've found our universe to cheat between the minimum length that would need to be simulated and the Plank length - it's all noise down there where we expected to find signal.
There could also be an undiscovered reason, but the shape of the noise matches to a few sigma that predicted by the 'spherical projection' simulation model, so that's a good place to look.
...it does absolutely nothing to intimidate shops that operating illegally
Ugh. Me need caffeine. Should have been "it does absolutely nothing to intimidate shops that are operating legally".
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
