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.

(Salon)   Liberal explains why drug dealers are champions of liberty subverting the tyranny of McJobs   (salon.com) divider line 95
    More: Hero, REI  
•       •       •

2087 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Mar 2014 at 10:05 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-10 09:06:45 AM
Misleading, trollish, partisan headline, in my Fark? It is more likely than you think.
 
2014-03-10 09:21:28 AM
I dunno about "champions" but if you have limited opportunities in education, and a decided lack of jobs, not to mention a fair number of folks with split families, and limited prospects, how you going to blame a man for helping himself? Then again, maybe if poor folks stopped looking at each other with wariness, they might just realize who is screwing them on a regular basis...

I don't agree with the choices made, but I understand it. I understand that we are training a lot of young folks to be criminals long before they turn to it. And if it's not by design, it for damn sure is a helluva thing to hit on by accident.
 
2014-03-10 09:33:05 AM
Salon links haven't loaded for me for a couple of days.
Thanks, Comcast.
 
2014-03-10 09:33:29 AM
So if drugs are legalized, poor and marginalized citizens will lose their jobs?

I would think the GOP would be all for this.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-03-10 09:39:27 AM
If drugs are legalized, those professionals the dealer sells to will go to big corporate stores which will offer McJobs to the formerly independent street dealers.
 
2014-03-10 09:47:00 AM

ZAZ: If drugs are legalized, those professionals the dealer sells to will go to big corporate stores which will offer McJobs to the formerly independent street dealers.


The thing is: with the way legalization is going, folks who have priors won't be allowed in. The girl critter's brother got popped years ago for selling weed. He is a brilliant grower, and with legalization, he is sidelined and not able to use those skills in the new industry. Quite literally, the folks best qualified to go into craft growing are being excised from the process. It's great for pharmaceuticals, not so great for craft growers, unless they've never even been investigated.
 
2014-03-10 09:49:04 AM

Marcus Aurelius: So if drugs are legalized, poor and marginalized citizens will lose their jobs?

I would think the GOP would be all for this.


actually I think what the article is saying is that if we raised the minimum wage then the War On Drugs would be over.
 
2014-03-10 09:54:00 AM
I guess the liberal thing about this article is that it seems to acknowledge several realistic factors about the drug trade.

Seriously though, it seems like once again the real issue is poverty.  When are conservatives going to realize they need to address that?
 
2014-03-10 09:55:55 AM
Obligatory:

i.huffpost.com
 
2014-03-10 09:56:16 AM
img593.imageshack.us

I'm not guilty. *You're* the one that's guilty. The lawmakers, the politicians, the Columbian drug lords, all you who lobby against making drugs legal. Just like you did with alcohol during the prohibition. You're the one who's guilty. I mean, c'mon, let's kick the ballistics here: Ain't no Uzi's made in Harlem. Not one of us in here owns a poppy field. This thing is bigger than Nino Brown. This is big business. This is the American way.
 
2014-03-10 09:56:36 AM

SphericalTime: I guess the liberal thing about this article is that it seems to acknowledge several realistic factors about the drug trade.

Seriously though, it seems like once again the real issue is poverty.  When are conservatives going to realize they need to address that?


Folks are. Poor people are just lazy, and they just need to be less lazy, take more jobs at less pay, and then we can have full employment. They'll be far too busy to think about drugs, or making babies then, and thus we won't need all that pesky "birth control" nonsense. Study it out, mang. Study. It. Out.
 
2014-03-10 09:59:06 AM

Voiceofreason01: Marcus Aurelius: So if drugs are legalized, poor and marginalized citizens will lose their jobs?

I would think the GOP would be all for this.

actually I think what the article is saying is that if we raised the minimum wage then the War On Drugs would be over.


Or more people could afford to buy drugs instead of selling them.

The war on drugs will be over when I can walk into a store and buy drugs.
 
2014-03-10 10:00:03 AM
I may or may not have known some people in the past who sold drugs on the side to make extra fun money.

Myself, I worked on people's computers for extra fun money. YMMV
 
2014-03-10 10:11:15 AM

hubiestubert: ZAZ: If drugs are legalized, those professionals the dealer sells to will go to big corporate stores which will offer McJobs to the formerly independent street dealers.

The thing is: with the way legalization is going, folks who have priors won't be allowed in. The girl critter's brother got popped years ago for selling weed. He is a brilliant grower, and with legalization, he is sidelined and not able to use those skills in the new industry. Quite literally, the folks best qualified to go into craft growing are being excised from the process. It's great for pharmaceuticals, not so great for craft growers, unless they've never even been investigated.


I'm just waiting to break out my pots and hydro again... lets hurry up and get this shiat legalized.
 
2014-03-10 10:14:10 AM
So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.
 
2014-03-10 10:14:33 AM

bearded clamorer: Salon links haven't loaded for me for a couple of days.
Thanks, Comcast.


Is that why The Guardian has been loading sporadically as f--k over the weekend?  I was blaming their site, since everything else was going fine.

/shifty eyes
 
2014-03-10 10:15:11 AM
subby is sure it is a liberal because it was a somewhat accurate portrayal of the situation.
 
2014-03-10 10:15:22 AM

hubiestubert: Then again, maybe if poor folks stopped looking at each other with wariness, they might just realize who is screwing them on a regular basis...


I think being able to do that is a bit of a cognitive luxury. Most desperately poor people are only really able to look at the short-term and the immediate because they don't have the resources to be able to take a day or two to look at any bigger of a picture than they already look at. The amount of energy it takes just to maintain being poor as opposed to completely destitute is staggeringly high.
 
2014-03-10 10:16:33 AM

Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.


decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.
 
2014-03-10 10:16:42 AM

hubiestubert: SphericalTime: I guess the liberal thing about this article is that it seems to acknowledge several realistic factors about the drug trade.

Seriously though, it seems like once again the real issue is poverty.  When are conservatives going to realize they need to address that?

Folks are. Poor people are just lazy, and they just need to be less lazy, take more jobs at less pay, and then we can have full employment. They'll be far too busy to think about drugs, or making babies then, and thus we won't need all that pesky "birth control" nonsense. Study it out, mang. Study. It. Out.


Oh, right.  I guess I forgot about that part.
 
2014-03-10 10:19:41 AM

Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.


Dispensories do not pay income tax?
 
2014-03-10 10:22:16 AM

Saiga410: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Dispensories do not pay income tax?


The buildings they rent don't pay property tax?

Hell, my friend worked for a medical dispo that gave a *lot* of money to local non-profits.  Being a visible good neighbor was integral to their business model.  Definitely helped when some jackasses tried to roll back the will of the voters at the capital.
 
2014-03-10 10:24:04 AM

Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.


Then explain the tax structure of medical mary-jane stores popping up all over the place.
 
2014-03-10 10:24:39 AM
Doesn't everybody learn this in college the first time they buy weed from their buddy's "guy"?

He's not some swarthy stereotype (MidEastern, Spanish-speaking), doesn't live in a mansion with bikini-clad women carrying shiny trays of colorful drinks, and he doesn't take you into his basement grow-house. Conversely, it's not likely to have a single flickering fluorescent alternately illuminating the skinny, pimpled (or crag-faced), nodding-off junkies in various states of decomposition and providing a welcome alternative darkness.
 
2014-03-10 10:24:54 AM

Saiga410: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Dispensories do not pay income tax?


Decriminalization is not legalization.
 
2014-03-10 10:26:11 AM

A Cave Geek: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Then explain the tax structure of medical mary-jane stores popping up all over the place.


it's legal for the users of medical cannabis, it's not decriminalized.
 
2014-03-10 10:27:01 AM

SphericalTime: Seriously though, it seems like once again the real issue is poverty. When are conservatives going to realize they need to address that?


They realize it, that's why they want to cut taxes.  As soon as all tax on income over 500K is eliminated they will unleash their piles of money on job creation, not a moment before because freedom and such.
 
2014-03-10 10:30:22 AM
it would piss a lot of police depts off if they legalized drugs. no more seizures. no more huge budgets. no more planting shiat on people to facilitate taking their property.
 
2014-03-10 10:30:37 AM
... being self-employed offers these men a freedom unavailable to them at a normal job.

Sure, though freedom may be a poor word choice, considering this job literally puts your freedom at risk.
 
2014-03-10 10:31:02 AM

Psylence: hubiestubert: ZAZ: If drugs are legalized, those professionals the dealer sells to will go to big corporate stores which will offer McJobs to the formerly independent street dealers.

The thing is: with the way legalization is going, folks who have priors won't be allowed in. The girl critter's brother got popped years ago for selling weed. He is a brilliant grower, and with legalization, he is sidelined and not able to use those skills in the new industry. Quite literally, the folks best qualified to go into craft growing are being excised from the process. It's great for pharmaceuticals, not so great for craft growers, unless they've never even been investigated.

I'm just waiting to break out my pots and hydro again... lets hurry up and get this shiat legalized.


It's just sad that the folks most qualified, especially at the craft grower level, the folks who would be suited to kick off real growth at the middling level, and thus drive markets forward, are going to be sidelined, save for growing for personal use. There is a huge potential for job growth, and instead, it's going to be driven into the hands of large growers, and into a smaller number of hands--which isn't exactly a bug, but a feature in order to get these bills put on the docket for certain--and it's going to take a generation or two to see the real potential. Much like after Prohibition, and the rise of sh*t beer in this country being the most "popular" because the easiest crap to brew was the stuff that came out first.

For me, I don't really care about weed as a recreational substance. I don't particularly like the stuff, and it does have some medical use, so drive on there. For me, the commercial use is far more interesting, since we have seen about a hundred years of competition stifled. The folks who will scream the most about it not being a viable market alternative, seem to forget that marijuana prohibition came about the same time that there was finally a way to cheaply harvest and process hemp. Suddenly, cotton and timber folks were all gung ho about stamping out this EBBIL in our midst, and how kill crazy it made those darned weed smokers, and then how pacific it would make them so that they wouldn't fight our wars, and then how terrible the products made from hemp would turn out to be--so much so, that the military still has an exemption from use of hemp rope to this day. The whole thing revolves not around the recreational use, but about the economic impact of a relatively cheap and useful crop coming into the market and putting competition on the folks that have ruled said markets for a long while. It always comes down to following the money. And in this case, legalization will benefit those who are closest to the folks who are going to make legalization possible, to get a leg up on potential competition, and freezing out potential competitors for as long as possible.
 
2014-03-10 10:34:42 AM

Headso: A Cave Geek: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Then explain the tax structure of medical mary-jane stores popping up all over the place.

it's legal for the users of medical cannabis, it's not decriminalized.


true.  But there is still tax paid.  Please explain to me how there's no additional tax money when they are paying tax on it?
 
2014-03-10 10:38:15 AM

hubiestubert: There is a huge potential for job growth, and instead, it's going to be driven into the hands of large growers, and into a smaller number of hand


That's how the new medical laws are, the one that was passed recently in MA excludes everyone but the very wealthy and well connected from participating in the market. The only way to play is a dispensary license, you have to spend 30k on an application process that you will not get back if you are not given a permit to run a dispensary.
 
2014-03-10 10:40:54 AM

A Cave Geek: Headso: A Cave Geek: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Then explain the tax structure of medical mary-jane stores popping up all over the place.

it's legal for the users of medical cannabis, it's not decriminalized.

true.  But there is still tax paid.  Please explain to me how there's no additional tax money when they are paying tax on it?


they are paying tax on their legal cannabis, it's not decriminalized for medical users it is legalized.
 
2014-03-10 10:44:15 AM

Headso: they are paying tax on their legal cannabis, it's not decriminalized for medical users it is legalized.


semantics
 
2014-03-10 10:44:17 AM

A Cave Geek: Headso: A Cave Geek: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Then explain the tax structure of medical mary-jane stores popping up all over the place.

it's legal for the users of medical cannabis, it's not decriminalized.

true.  But there is still tax paid.  Please explain to me how there's no additional tax money when they are paying tax on it?


Technically, drug dealers are required to declare their sales as personal income and pay taxes to the IRS.

"llegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity."
 
2014-03-10 10:45:23 AM

hubiestubert: And in this case, legalization will benefit those who are closest to the folks who are going to make legalization possible, to get a leg up on potential competition, and freezing out potential competitors for as long as possible.


This is America, we don't want free markets. We want constitutionally protected monopolies dammit!
 
2014-03-10 10:47:59 AM

StreetlightInTheGhetto: bearded clamorer: Salon links haven't loaded for me for a couple of days.
Thanks, Comcast.

Is that why The Guardian has been loading sporadically as f--k over the weekend?  I was blaming their site, since everything else was going fine.

/shifty eyes


I have Comcast. I have no issues with salon or any other site fark links to.
 
2014-03-10 10:52:35 AM

roddack: Headso: they are paying tax on their legal cannabis, it's not decriminalized for medical users it is legalized.

semantics


No, it's not. Those are words with specific meanings.
 
2014-03-10 11:01:07 AM

factoryconnection: Misleading, trollish, partisan headline, in my Fark? It is more likely than you think.


done in one
 
2014-03-10 11:02:38 AM

Tarl3k: factoryconnection: Misleading, trollish, partisan headline, in my Fark? It is more likely than you think.

done in one


Yup. Why are we still here?
 
2014-03-10 11:04:56 AM
Hoo boy, sumitter, the public school system really failed you, didn't it? Welp, can't win 'em all.
 
m00
2014-03-10 11:05:34 AM
According to Mark, a former cop who worked narcotics for 18 years, the Albuquerque Police Department - like many local police departments - counts on asset seizures to increase its budgets. He said that when he was an officer, the emphasis was on property seizures rather than drug seizures, because the department could then use the profits to buy equipment and cars. Such forfeitures happen before the suspect is convicted, meaning that even if they are innocent, they can still lose their property.
 
2014-03-10 11:11:09 AM

Hobodeluxe: it would piss a lot of police depts off if they legalized drugs. no more seizures. no more huge budgets. no more planting shiat on people to facilitate taking their property.


Actually, police supported the decriminalization and then legalization of weed in WA. Something about wasting their time and resources on criminals that weren't hurting anyone except possibly themselves instead of fighting actual, y'know, crime.
 
2014-03-10 11:13:38 AM

factoryconnection: Misleading, trollish, partisan headline, in my Fark? It is more likely than you think.


Well yeah, you're in the Politics tab (aka the editorial sensationalist clickbait tab). That's kind of the point.
 
2014-03-10 11:17:17 AM

Rhino_man: Tarl3k: factoryconnection: Misleading, trollish, partisan headline, in my Fark? It is more likely than you think.

done in one

Yup. Why are we still here?


Yup, why do we even have Fark?
 
2014-03-10 11:22:59 AM

Marcus Aurelius: The war on drugs will be over when I can walk into a store and buy drugs.


Why bother going to the store?  Home delivery FTW!
 
2014-03-10 11:23:34 AM

Needlessly Complicated: Hoo boy, sumitter, the public school system really failed you, didn't it? Welp, can't win 'em all.


Don't blame the education system. You can't fix stupid.
 
2014-03-10 11:23:49 AM

Summoner101: Hobodeluxe: it would piss a lot of police depts off if they legalized drugs. no more seizures. no more huge budgets. no more planting shiat on people to facilitate taking their property.

Actually, police supported the decriminalization and then legalization of weed in WA. Something about wasting their time and resources on criminals that weren't hurting anyone except possibly themselves instead of fighting actual, y'know, crime.


Legalization also means less court costs, and less money invested in prison budgets. But some folks do still have a problem with the loss of funds. Mostly, politicians and bureaucrats who jockey for position by money that they control. Police...it depends on how corrupt the forces are...
 
2014-03-10 11:25:54 AM

A Cave Geek: Headso: A Cave Geek: Headso: Saiga410: So that is why liberals are for decriminalization.   Anything to kick the ladder out of structural poverty for their chosen demographic lachons.  That and to punish tax evaders.... that is the people's money.

decrim doesn't bring in any additional tax money.

Then explain the tax structure of medical mary-jane stores popping up all over the place.

it's legal for the users of medical cannabis, it's not decriminalized.

true.  But there is still tax paid.  Please explain to me how there's no additional tax money when they are paying tax on it?


He's wrong and a moron.  Decriminalization has two effects:  Additional revenue either from fines rather than jail or from outright tax via legalization.  The second effect is even bigger.  This is a person you are not housing in jail...not giving free medical care to nor providing 3 square meals a day.  They may or may not be receiving food stamps but that would be no different from any other fictitious straw man I could dream up.

Bottom line is that for a majority of non-violent drug-related crimes treatment is both the most reasonable and most economically viable solution which also avoids dehumanization inherent in our prison system.  Beyond that...decriminalization lowers social stigmatization and lowers court costs and appearances and stops overloading our system.  Legalization goes further and puts many of these issues squarely in the realm of medical care/insurance and then we get into things like DUI's and endangering the welfare of a minor.

Treat all drugs the way we treat alcohol and things will likely be fine.  It should still be illegal to drive while high or to allow minors to consume these substances (yes that includes second hand smoke).  Stop being irresponsible.  k thx bye.  Oh and employers can have reasonable restrictions such as you not being allowed to get high if you're on-call (Doctor/IT/ name your performance profession) or are a police officer/FBI etc.  It is all good if you're on vacation and not expected to perform a demanding duty.  Addiction should be treated and there are some drugs where addiction is acute and intense (Meth, Heroine, Crokodile, and friggin opiate really)  And that is due to how our brains are wired.

Some people are also wired differently and are more easily addicted to substances.  Maybe as science progresses we will develop treatments targeted based on an individual's neurological system.
 
2014-03-10 11:34:17 AM
I always though Omar was a symbol of the dangers of an unregulated leze faire economy. I thought conservatives would love drug dealers. Deregulated libertarian capitalism at its finest
 
Displayed 50 of 95 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report