Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TaxProf)   To avoid taxes, should medical marijuana sellers operate as nonprofits?   (taxprof.typepad.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, local taxes, United States Code, nonprofits, income taxes, tax exemption, marijuana sellers  
•       •       •

3413 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Mar 2013 at 1:55 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 06:00:09 PM  

Kahabut: keepitcherry: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Considering the "legal" prices are the same as the street prices, I'd say someone is making a profit whether they're reporting it or not

/someone needs to investigate price fixing in the market

Here in Northern California the "legal" prices are like double the price as the street prices for the same quality.

Where the fark do you live?  In San Francisco (commonly considered NorCal), the street prices are roughly 40-50/3.5grams.    The quality is... well, based mostly on opinion and I won't argue it.  Now, the club prices are set at 15/gram.  The quality is top notch by any standard, and it's consistent.  (this assumes you are buying buds, if you buy edibles or shake or whatever the pricing changes)

I don't know if you are just talking out your ass, or if you are getting ripped off by someone.  In either case, I think it's safe to say that you don't represent the average.


What in the fark are you talking about? I live in Stockton , CA and lived in SF for 5 years. The clubs I've been to charge $60+ for an eighth. (Harborside in Oakland can easily get over 60 including taxes, CMC in SF used to be expensive as fark too). If the street dealers are charging you 40-50 for an eighth then you, my friend are the one getting ripped off. I can get the same quality here on the streets in Stockton for 60 a quarter. Hence my original comment that clubs are charging double for the same product. Either way I don't give a fark. I grow my own connoisseur grade cannabis and don't allow myself to be ripped off by either the street dealers or the shady ass dispensary owners. But hey if you like paying $60 an eighth, I've got some bomb ass Kandy Kush I'll sell to you cheaper, sucker.
 
2013-03-04 06:09:10 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: The IRS does not allow deduction of expenses for illegal activities, period.


Hey yeah. That's a good point. Even as a 501(c) company, they aren't going to be able to claim deductions that would get them to zero profit, because the IRS would still deny all their deductions.

Hm. Head scratcher. The alleged tax expert in TFA seemed to think it was a good idea, so maybe I am missing something. Or maybe he was stoned at the time.
 
2013-03-04 06:09:14 PM  
users are losers and losers are users
so don't use drugs
DOOOOON'T use drugs!!
 
2013-03-04 06:41:56 PM  

Sgygus: FloydA:  If enough people agree that the tax code should be changed, those candidates will win and those policies will be enacted.

That sounds good in theory, but it never works that way in real life.   Colorado has legalized marijuana because ... our state representatives followed the will of the people and passed a legalization law?  Hell no.  It was legalized through a referendum, a direct vote of the people on the issue.  If left to our politicians, there would be no movement on this issue.

If you think elected officials represent voters, you are naive.


Really?  Sounds to me like the system worked just fine.  Enough people agreed that marijuana should be legal, the will of the people of Colorado was that it should be legal, and a referendum and direct vote of the people made it legal.  In other words, enough people agreed that the law needed to be changed, so it was changed.

How does that conflict with what I said, in your opinion?


Mr Guy: FloydA: So change the law. If the federal tax code is written in a way that seems unfair to you, advocate for re-writing it and support candidates who consider that a priority. If enough people agree that the tax code should be changed, those candidates will win and those policies will be enacted.

Glad you caught up.  Since the law is unfair, this article is discussing one method of changing your tax status: through non profit status.  Changing the law is a slower but more direct method.  Glad you agree with us, that if the government is insisting on taxing marijuana unfairly, marijuana growers are wise to legally operate as a non-profit if available, and to promote changes to the tax law.


I am in absolutely full agreement that the law should be changed.  Personally, I support full legalization and removal of marijuana from the CSA.  I am just also in favor of people paying their way.

Right now, in my home state of Washington (where recreational use is now legal, in part because I campaigned and voted for it), we are a little bit worried that some marijuana sales are going to be taxed like liquor is, and other marijuana sales are going to be tax free because of the 501(c) exemption.  That difference between taxation on "recreational" sale and no tax on "medical" sales is almost guaranteed to create a black market.  I would prefer that all sales are legal and all taxed, so that everyone in the state benefits, rather than that some sales are taxed and other sales funnel money into organized crime, so that only a few benefit.  We've seen how that works out with alcohol prohibition; I don't think that's a good direction to go.

Now don't get me wrong, I understand.  A lot of people have been listening to GOP propaganda for their whole life, and they've internalized the "Taxes are bad" message, and automatically oppose any sort of tax at all, even when they would personally benefit from it.  I get it; paying taxes sucks; I really wish that I could get all of the benefits of living in a complex civilization for free, that would be awesome.  But the fact is, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." My mom isn't going to spoon feed me any more.  If we want the benefits of living in a civilized society, we have to be willing to pay for them.  Nobody is going to give us the perks without collecting some payment.  The "Baby Boom" generation were handed everything they ever wanted, and now that the bills are due, the "tea party" people want to get someone else to pay them, and really, that just ain't going to work.  You want to take the ride?  Fine, buy the ticket.  If you won't pay the cost of the ticket, you can't go on the ride.  It's that simple.
 
2013-03-04 06:42:37 PM  

gilgigamesh: FloydA: hasty ambush: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7624877/82848582#c82848582" target="_blank">FloydA</a>:</b> <i>Taxes are the entry fee that you pay in order to be allowed to participate in civilization. Pay up or get out.</i>

And of course that "fee" is never excessive or used as means to control behavior or destroy and activity.

More power to anybody who can legally lower his tax burden.


Get out of my country then.

Seriously, if paying for the privilege of living in a civilized society is too much of a "burden" for you, then get the hell out.  Go Galt, live in a Randian tax-free paradise, and more power to you.  I wish you the best of luck.  But stop using all of the benefits of civilization if you aren't willing to pay the costs.  You can't have your ice cream unless you finish your veggies.

I have to ask: do you take marital, mortgage interest, child or any other legal deductions when you file? Or do you just say, "F*ck that. Deductions are for whusses" and pay the straight up percentage for your tax bracket?

Because if its the former, you may be a hypocrite.


He is as big a hypocrite as those rich peopel who think they should pay mroe taxes but don't (ie Warren Buffet).


Taxation does not mean you have a civilized society. Plenty of uncivilized societies throughout history have imposed a "tax" on its subjects.

"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create"  Chief Justice John Marshall- McCulloch v. Maryland

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy," Daniel Webster 17 U.S. 327 (1819)
 
2013-03-04 06:42:42 PM  

ReverendJynxed: umad: FloydA: headslacker: FloydA. You're an idiot.

Thank you for your eloquent, well-supported, and well thought out refutation of my point.  I find it very convincing of something.

Any response with more complexity would have just confused you. He was just taking your mental disability into account.

Smaller words bro. I think you just broke him.


i105.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-04 06:59:36 PM  

Mr Guy: Wrencher: Keyser_Soze_Death: I guess no one read TFA, where it talks about a 75% federal tax being at issue.

/tax any business at 75% and it literally becomes a non-profit operation.

Here in Washington, cigarettes are taxed at 90%. There is no shortage of people selling them very profitably.

They wouldn't be if tobacco took less time to air cure.  There's just no way to intelligently talk about this problem without admitting the biggest problem with marijuana is that if it wasn't illegal, it'd be approximately as difficult to be self sufficient with marijuana as it is to be self sufficient with tomatoes.   If you were allowed to stick a couple certified female seedlings from a local nursery into a deer proof tomato cage in your backyard, pretty much the whole country can grow weed by accident.  Some little old lady in Chicago managed to accidentally grow a bush the side of a small duplex off her back porch.  Everything difficult about marijuana cultivation stems from the need for secrecy.


Tobacco is difficult to grow here too. It likes to be warmer.
I voted to legalise cannabis here, and happy it passed. It's a good first step. My point was that even with high ;) tax, it will sell like hotcakes.
 
2013-03-04 07:02:12 PM  
if you know a user even part of the timeeee
tell him to QUIT take a BITE OUT OF CRIME!!!

t0.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-04 07:08:39 PM  

Kahabut: keepitcherry: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Considering the "legal" prices are the same as the street prices, I'd say someone is making a profit whether they're reporting it or not

/someone needs to investigate price fixing in the market

Here in Northern California the "legal" prices are like double the price as the street prices for the same quality.

Where the fark do you live?  In San Francisco (commonly considered NorCal), the street prices are roughly 40-50/3.5grams.    The quality is... well, based mostly on opinion and I won't argue it.  Now, the club prices are set at 15/gram.  The quality is top notch by any standard, and it's consistent.  (this assumes you are buying buds, if you buy edibles or shake or whatever the pricing changes)

I don't know if you are just talking out your ass, or if you are getting ripped off by someone.  In either case, I think it's safe to say that you don't represent the average.


he is probably stating the opposite. In northern california (sacramento and north), pot is generally $10-$25/3.5g through private channels b/c 'everyone and their grandma grows it' -- so in many cases you are supplied directly by the grower--this becomes increasingly the case the further north you get. In my experience, the same quality cannabis can be obtained from a grower for anywhere from 0% to 50% of the cost it could be obtained from a club--quality, strain-specific demand, and the proximity of your relationship to your supplier all factor into this calculation. Also, the term 'street price' is insignificant when regarding cannabis QPR (quality-price ratio) performance, because it includes two categories that generally perform on opposite ends of the spectrum: (1) pot obtained from unknown sources that spans a wide, unpredictable range of quality and price; (2) pot obtained through established (or preferred) channels.
 
2013-03-04 07:26:04 PM  

FloydA: If enough people agree that the tax code should be changed, those candidates will win and those policies will be enacted.

FloydA:

 How does that conflict with what I said, in your opinion?

The conflict is with your belief in elected representatives.  The two states that have legalized cannabis only did so by by-passing our representatives through use of constitutional amendments.  It is mainly some western states that allow such direct votes.  The rest of you ... good luck.
 
2013-03-04 07:47:55 PM  

Wrencher: My point was that even with high ;) tax, it will sell like hotcakes.


Not when you are competing against an existing thriving black market they won't. The federal government is explicitly making it impossible for a legal dispensary to be profitable. And that is only when they aren't confiscating it all and tossing your ass in prison anyway.
 
2013-03-04 07:50:33 PM  

Sgygus: FloydA: If enough people agree that the tax code should be changed, those candidates will win and those policies will be enacted.

FloydA: How does that conflict with what I said, in your opinion?

The conflict is with your belief in elected representatives.  The two states that have legalized cannabis only did so by by-passing our representatives through use of constitutional amendments.  It is mainly some western states that allow such direct votes.  The rest of you ... good luck.


I live in one of those states; I can legally smoke pot if I want to.  If your point is "the people I voted for don't do what I want them to do," then I agree.  If your point is "nobody in my state has put up the effort to make legalization happen" then I agree with that as well.  Get off your ass and make it happen in your state; stop waiting around for someone else to do it for you.  I campaigned to make marijuana legal in my state (even though I don't care for it myself), Now I can smoke it whenever I want to, and so can my neighbors.

People in other states have not bothered to put up the effort, but they seem to have enough energy to complain that nobody has done it for them.

Seriously, if there is one theme running through all my posts in this thread, it is this: "stop expecting someone else to fix everything for you."  If you want legal pot, work for it.  If you want to avoid taxes, stop using the benefits.  Just, seriously, honestly, grow the fark up, people, and start taking some responsibility for your lives! Stop whining and asking someone else to fix everything.  I'm not your mom!
 
2013-03-04 08:18:17 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: Actually, as divx88 pointed out upthread, it is indeed legal to deduct expenses incurred while running your business, even if that business is illegal. So sayeth SCOTUS in Commissioner v Tellier, where the Supreme Robewearers of the Land said the purpose of the tax law was to tax net income, not punish unlawful behavior. The major problem with 280E is that it says it is NOT legal to do so as it is written to specifically address only one kind of illegal behavior on the federal level, even though it is now legal behavior at the state level.

Apparently the Supreme Dudes and Dudettes, if any 280E litigation makes it to them, are going to have to smack some hands and point to the Commissioner v Tellier ruling that SCOTUS already made.


Interesting.  I was unaware of that ruling.   However, it is not a blanket prohibition of using the tax code to punish illegal activity.  The Court said that if there is to be such a punishment, it must originate in Congress and not the IRS.  Section 280E was enacted by Congress.

It seems unlikely that Congress will keep the prohibition on marijuana while making it easier to profit by selling it.  Section 280E is not going anywhere before MJ is legalized by the feds.
 
2013-03-04 08:34:22 PM  

gilgigamesh: BarkingUnicorn: The IRS does not allow deduction of expenses for illegal activities, period.

Hey yeah. That's a good point. Even as a 501(c) company, they aren't going to be able to claim deductions that would get them to zero profit, because the IRS would still deny all their deductions.

Hm. Head scratcher. The alleged tax expert in TFA seemed to think it was a good idea, so maybe I am missing something. Or maybe he was stoned at the time.


His idea is shot down in the comments:

In Rev Ruling 75-384, the IRS ruled that "illegal activities, which violate the minimum standards of acceptable conduct necessary for the preservation of an orderly society, are contrary to the common good and the general welfare of the people in a community and thus are not permissible means of promoting the social welfare for purposes of section 501(c)(4) of the Code."

Some people are parsing that sentence to mean that illegal activities must "violate the minimum standards of acceptable conduct..." of the community being served in order to be grounds for denying nonprofit status. "If the community accepts an illegal activity, it's OK."  I'd love to see a welfare fraud ring try to get non-profit status on that basis.
 
2013-03-04 08:38:09 PM  

WeenerGord: TheJoe03: vudukungfu: LOLWhut?

The War on Drugs and the massive spike in incarceration rates (both done after the Civil Rights Movement) are considered to be based in institutionally racist policies. For example, white people use and sell drugs at about the same rate as as blacks and Latinos but the incarceration rates for those things are not even close to equal.


Wrong, fool. It was made illegal by the influence of DuPont which wanted to replace hemp rope, used in all ships, with it's new synthetic rope made of dacron fiber. This was tremendously profitable for DuPont as WWII was on the horizon. Then when it was discovered that Dacron stretched in seawater, Hemp For Victory was quickly pushed in the farmers till right after the war then it was back to fark you again.

And Nixon ramped up the drug war, after numerous studies, and testifying to Congress, by the American Medical Association, saying it was harmless, beneficial and should be legal, to get the Vietnam anti-war protesters off his lawn. Both times, pot was criminalized for the benefit of war profiteering.

Whites want legal pot as much as anybody else so take your racism and shove it.


We agree yet you're being a coont about it, learn how to comprehend posts before saying dumb shiat, nothing I said was racist.
 
2013-03-04 08:39:42 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Real Women Drink Akvavit: Actually, as divx88 pointed out upthread, it is indeed legal to deduct expenses incurred while running your business, even if that business is illegal. So sayeth SCOTUS in Commissioner v Tellier, where the Supreme Robewearers of the Land said the purpose of the tax law was to tax net income, not punish unlawful behavior. The major problem with 280E is that it says it is NOT legal to do so as it is written to specifically address only one kind of illegal behavior on the federal level, even though it is now legal behavior at the state level.

Apparently the Supreme Dudes and Dudettes, if any 280E litigation makes it to them, are going to have to smack some hands and point to the Commissioner v Tellier ruling that SCOTUS already made.

Interesting.  I was unaware of that ruling.   However, it is not a blanket prohibition of using the tax code to punish illegal activity.  The Court said that if there is to be such a punishment, it must originate in Congress and not the IRS.  Section 280E was enacted by Congress.

It seems unlikely that Congress will keep the prohibition on marijuana while making it easier to profit by selling it.  Section 280E is not going anywhere before MJ is legalized by the feds.


I wouldn't be surprised to see it in front of the Supreme Court in the not too distant future, really. When California gets really agnsty about stuff, well, we tend to put down the tofu burger and wheat grass smoothie and throw tantrums. These tantrums tend to involve the courts. It's kind of the way we are here. Taxing our legal dispensaries right out of existence because they simply cannot afford the taxes and the fees they have to pay to be legal in the first place isn't going to go over too well. The states will argue that SCOTUS never said anything about something that is legal under state law and the feds will argue that it is still "illegal trafficking". So I guess they will have no choice but to revisit the issue, especially now that other states are running with the "blaze me, dudes" thing.

/not a smoker, btw
 
2013-03-04 08:42:56 PM  

FloydA: stop expecting someone else to fix everything for you


For this I applaud you, FloydA.
 
2013-03-04 08:54:53 PM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: I wouldn't be surprised to see it in front of the Supreme Court in the not too distant future, really. When California gets really agnsty about stuff, well, we tend to put down the tofu burger and wheat grass smoothie and throw tantrums. These tantrums tend to involve the courts. It's kind of the way we are here. Taxing our legal dispensaries right out of existence because they simply cannot afford the taxes and the fees they have to pay to be legal in the first place isn't going to go over too well. The states will argue that SCOTUS never said anything about something that is legal under state law and the feds will argue that it is still "illegal trafficking". So I guess they will have no choice but to revisit the issue, especially now that other states are running with the "blaze me, dudes" thing.


I expect the SCOTUS to refuse to be drawn into this turf war.  Hasn't MJ already been ruled to  fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause?  They're not gonna do that whole whole "locally grown and used" thing again.  Interstate pot tourism is too easily proven.

A Congressional act is the only way it's gonna get resolved.
 
2013-03-04 09:13:03 PM  
honest question -- whats to prevent WA or CO from putting a measure on the ballot to recriminalize MJ?

seeing how they both passed with slim margins
 
2013-03-04 09:28:29 PM  

thisiszombocom: honest question -- whats to prevent WA or CO from putting a measure on the ballot to recriminalize MJ? seeing how they both passed with slim margins


Nothing ... except time energy and money.  Colorado passed amendment 65 by a 54.8% to 45.1% margin.  Hardly close at all.
 
2013-03-04 09:31:06 PM  

umad: Wrencher: My point was that even with high ;) tax, it will sell like hotcakes.

Not when you are competing against an existing thriving black market they won't. The federal government is explicitly making it impossible for a legal dispensary to be profitable. And that is only when they aren't confiscating it all and tossing your ass in prison anyway.


When the existing black market is not trustworthy, many people will pay a premium price to know their bud is not sprinkled with Meth.
The Washington State Liquor Control Board still has 10 months to iron out the details for regulations and quality controls. It remains to be seen how the Feds will react, and if they will be true to their word. There are many thriving medical dispensaries here already that the Feds have so far , left alone. I'm not sure how they have been handling their taxes, but the ones I know of have been at least moderately profitable.
 
2013-03-04 09:47:51 PM  
TheJoe03: We agree yet you're being a coont about it, learn how to comprehend posts before saying dumb shiat, nothing I said was racist.


We agree that you are a coont for being a racist and playing the race card, yes. I'd tell you to learn to comprehend but I understand that you cannot.

If you had a brain you would understand that the powers that be have got you worked up to deflect your attention from who is really oppressing you. Dumbass.
 
2013-03-04 10:05:35 PM  

WeenerGord: We agree that you are a coont for being a racist and playing the race card, yes. I'd tell you to learn to comprehend but I understand that you cannot.

If you had a brain you would understand that the powers that be have got you worked up to deflect your attention from who is really oppressing you. Dumbass.


Seriously, do you know how asinine you sound? What did I say that was racist? Quote it, you sound clueless. Do you even understand what "institutional" means? Also, why can you say the original 30s laws were racist, but I can't say the fact that police go primarily after poor minorities when it comes to drugs despite all races having similar drug use and selling rates? You just going to call me names without backing up any of your points? You sound like you are arguing with someone else because you seemed to misunderstand what I actually said. Sucks to be you, homie.
 
2013-03-04 10:11:14 PM  
Actually you didn't realize that the original push for criminalization was partly due to racism. You are just someone that doesn't understand how our nation (especially in that era) promoted institutional racism. You'd be blind to argue that, just a read a history book. You seem to see that as an attack on you and your whiteness, when all I'm doing is pointing out that our government crafted some of these policies out of racism. Enjoy living in your bubble, because we all know that our government has always treated white people just like everyone else, and anyone that points that out is obviously just a racist.
 
2013-03-04 10:14:02 PM  

Wrencher: When the existing black market is not trustworthy, many people will pay a premium price to know their bud is not sprinkled with Meth.


This is so absurd I'm not even sure how to reply.
 
2013-03-04 11:15:46 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: until the fed recognizes marijuana as legal and allows businesses to deduct normal business expenses the MM sector should do what ever it can to minimize it's tax burden.


In fact, the Feds should crack down on legal tax paying storefronts. Growing is still legal. Let the Feds cut off their nose to spite their face and leave those dollars on the table. What if weed was legal and the government didn't profit? I'd rather the funds go to schools, mental health, etc, but in the end.... You can't stop the signal... best take your cut.
 
2013-03-05 12:42:07 AM  

umad: Wrencher: When the existing black market is not trustworthy, many people will pay a premium price to know their bud is not sprinkled with Meth.

This is so absurd I'm not even sure how to reply.


OK, so many people will pay a premium price to believe....

Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.
 
2013-03-05 01:20:50 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: umad: Wrencher: When the existing black market is not trustworthy, many people will pay a premium price to know their bud is not sprinkled with Meth.

This is so absurd I'm not even sure how to reply.

OK, so many people will pay a premium price to believe....

Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.


bud sprinkled with meth, now half off [your rocker].That ain't 'appenin', any more than you get 87 octane with some accidental jet-a in it. people notice these things.
 
2013-03-05 02:11:16 AM  

TheJoe03: You just going to call me names


I called you the same name you called me, and you are throwing a tantrum????  HAHA!

www.reactiongifs.com
 
2013-03-05 02:15:11 AM  

WeenerGord: I called you the same name you called me, and you are throwing a tantrum????  HAHA!


Well I called you one name, but I actually did try to back up what I was saying. You can call me names, but if that's all you're doing then the discussion is pointless. Which at this point is self evident.
 
2013-03-05 02:24:06 AM  

TheJoe03: WeenerGord: I called you the same name you called me, and you are throwing a tantrum????  HAHA!

Well I called you one name, but I actually did try to back up what I was saying. You can call me names, but if that's all you're doing then the discussion is pointless. Which at this point is self evident.


No, you whined and cried and tried to make out like a farking drug war that ruins everyone's life, is all about you, because race. You played the race card. If you ever grow up, maybe you'll realize that life is hard for everybody. Like Floyd said, he's not your mommy. Act right and stop blaming others for all your troubles instead of making new enemies with your blame game race card.
 
2013-03-05 02:40:30 AM  

WeenerGord: No, you whined and cried and tried to make out like a farking drug war that ruins everyone's life, is all about you, because race. You played the race card. If you ever grow up, maybe you'll realize that life is hard for everybody. Like Floyd said, he's not your mommy. Act right and stop blaming others for all your troubles instead of making new enemies with your blame game race card.


I wasn't playing the race card, I was responding to a poster that was wondering why another poster brought racism into the discussion. Are we not allowed to talk about that topic or something?
 
2013-03-05 02:59:36 AM  

LookForTheArrow: BarkingUnicorn: umad: Wrencher: When the existing black market is not trustworthy, many people will pay a premium price to know their bud is not sprinkled with Meth.

This is so absurd I'm not even sure how to reply.

OK, so many people will pay a premium price to believe....

Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.

bud sprinkled with meth, now half off [your rocker].That ain't 'appenin', any more than you get 87 octane with some accidental jet-a in it. people notice these things.


Thanks.  I'm blissfully ignorant of such things.
 
2013-03-07 01:52:31 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: LookForTheArrow: BarkingUnicorn: umad: Wrencher: When the existing black market is not trustworthy, many people will pay a premium price to know their bud is not sprinkled with Meth.

This is so absurd I'm not even sure how to reply.

OK, so many people will pay a premium price to believe....

Trust is the belief that you can predict another person's behavior with an acceptable degree of confidence.

bud sprinkled with meth, now half off [your rocker].That ain't 'appenin', any more than you get 87 octane with some accidental jet-a in it. people notice these things.

Thanks.  I'm blissfully ignorant of such things.


as spock might say, being blissfully unaware, however comforting, is not logical.
 
Displayed 34 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report