ieatcrayonz

Perhaps you didn't read the HEADLINE:

Click the link in my last post. I might not have seen too many violent hippy loser dirt bags but you know who did see one? They guy in Miami that got his face eaten.

So you have cited one example in cigarettes where the government has imposed a tax high enough to create a black market. You cite another where the tax is not high enough to create a black market, or at least not one of any size. I agree that the taxes in both cases have done/not done what you said. Why again is it that they will go the booze route and not the cig route with pot taxes? Because today's street price is so "high"? My guess is that they would figure out today's cost of goods sold per joint, let's call it $.50 and the street price of a joint, let's call it $3. My guess is that the tax would be a whole lot closer to $2.50 than it would be to $0.25. Why do I think this? Because cigarettes have developed a stigmata over the years and their manufacturers have been shaken down by the government. Pot already has a stigmata as it is illegal. I think government would use this stigmata to its advantage and tax away. In addition, the "manufacturing costs and barriers to entry for pot are VERY low compared to either booze or cigs. Sure you can make your own beer and could conceivably grow your own tobacco in some climates but growing pot is pretty darn easy. When pot is legal I would think it would be even easier as there may be diminished pressure on growers to hide. In the case of cigs the government has failed to recognize the low elasticity and has helped create a black market. In the case of booze it has recognized the low elasticity. If you'd like to make a case as to why the tax will look more like the booze tax I'd be glad to hear it. Clearly cigs do not have a high elasticity of demand due in large part to few suitable substitutes. Booze can be argued as to its elasticity IMO but I would say booze as a whole has a low elasticity but a high elasticity within its own category. If you taxed the crap out of beer a lot more people might drink wine but if you tax the crap out of all booze then it starts to look more like cigs. My case Elasticity - Pot - low; cigs - low; Booze - low as a whole, moderate within its own category Barriers to entry - Cigs - high; Pot low; Booze - moderate for making your own, high if you want to distribute. This component means that the street price of pot has the potential to get lower than it is today. The stigmata of being illegal is to some degree raising the street price. It costs more to hide your manufacturing and distribution than it does to have it in the open. It helps keep costs down when your customers roll their own or just shove it in a bong shaped like a really cool skull or something that makes them seem hip. This is the crux of my argument. Government will use the built in stigmata pot already carries as an excuse to tax it more like cigarettes than like booze. This part has nothing to do with pricing but do you dudes want all the crap that goes with smoking dope to be legal too?

So you're saying that government will decide out of the goodness of its own heart to not create a tax in the amount representing street price minus costs minus a decent margin to competitive manufacturers? Stated another way, you think the government will knowingly leave easily attained tax revenue on the table. Good one.

That entitled feeling?

How much is the the cost of producing and distributing a pack of cigarettes? How much does a pack of cigarettes cost to buy? I have read that some Native Americans now have their own cigarette brands to skirt the tax laws. They constructed manufacturing facilities, brought in the raw materials, manufactured the product, fought sovereignty issues in courts and relied on their customer base to drive to their reservation land with $4 gas for the sole purpose of buying cigarettes with a non name brand. And they are flourishing. People do this because the huge component of the of the cost of a pack at the corner store is tax. And the government wouldn't repeat the process with pot because.......?

Let me see if I understand your non-emotional argument here: The average coked up loser pot head has a brand preference. Oh wait, then you said they don't. But it should be good because in today's environment these poor pot heads have nobody to sue if they get bad weed? The only emotional part of this whole thing is the validation hippy loser dirt bags are seeking for what even they, in their rotted inner core, know is wrong. Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of loser boozers either and they have had this validation for years. What percentage of people who have at least one drink per year are alkies? How about pot head losers? What percentage of those plan out their hole daily agenda based on their next toke? Crack heads? Coke heads? Those percentages are the non-emotional part of this whole thing.

You are so right because I'm sure states would never think of taxing the crap out of legal pot. :wallbash:

To the right of what? The Kremlin is all I got.

How about the premise that living in a world free of morons running around asking what if up is really down and down is really up.....whoa maaaaaaan...... is worth the risk of spending billions and possibly getting no results? I would personally spend at least $25B if I never had to see one of these dopes on TV wasting their lives and yammering on about pot as if it were the only friggin thing of any value on the entire Earth meanwhile their kid is at home and unable to come to grips with the concept of work because he has never seen daddy or mommy do anything difficult except try to piece together a logical argument for glorifying the use of drug which when taken strips them of the ability to use logic at all. And your doped up argument that there would be no criminality or black market in pot if it were only legalized so you could stop feeling guilt for doing something which is clearly wrong simply because Mr. government says it is ok so it must be ok is laughable. Do you think there is anyone making money off illegal cigarettes or booze? Why would that be different with pot? Neither did he or they because they were all friggin stoned.

So if pot takes credit for all the supposably "great" music these people put out that is fine I guess. I guess it must also have to take credit for all the other stuff they did too or is that where the excuse o rama kicks in? The Beatles - Married Yoko Ono; let Ringo Starr join the band Led Zeplin - Wore jeans clearly made for girl; drummer puked himself to death Marvin Gaye - Shot his father or maybe that was James Hardly but something happened Bob Dylan - Where do I begin? Annoyed millions just by talking or singing or whatever the heck that is James Brown - Beat the ever loving crap out of Tina Turner Bruce Springsteen - Completely and utterly sucks.....plus the wife who inspired the internet sensation the annoying orange Nirvana - See entry for Beatles replace the part which says "Yoko Ono" with the phrase "Courtney Love", Bob Marley - Begat Ziggy The Eagles - In contention with Belgium and Belgiums for most boring in history award. Miles Davis - I like this dude....don't know if he ever smoked Pink Floyd - 80% of band doesn't get along; 20% lives in a mental institution Ray Charles - I think there is something positive here inasmuch as he disproved the idiotic theory that pot cures glaucoma. David Bowie - Started the slippery slope that gave us Boy George Grateful Dead - If it weren't for The Eagles and Belgium they would at least be the best at something. I will give them credit for the bear stickers and skull stickers on cars which make idiots easy to identify. I hope I don't get suspended for this Stevie Vaughan - Kinda liked him Tribe Called Quest - Never heard of him but he must have been stoned when he named his band My Morning Jacket - How many coats do you Hollywood types need in one day anyway? Tupac - Pot smoking leads to a gang war.....nice case you're making here. Otis Redding - I think all that partying in Animal House was for the sake of the movie dude. You write crap like that; you should know a lot of it is made up Sam Cooke - Doped up and fooled by a loose woman and look what it got him Kings of Leon - We're digging here when we use the word music aren't we? Parliament - Great, talented and original and the best they can end up doing is a cameo in a Jeremy Piven movie? Can you say wasted potential? Tom Petty - See Bob Dylan; add ridiculous hair and a human birthday cake , Warren Zevon - I can see including this dude if you are somehow making an alphabetical list and need a way to end it but you weren't making an alphabetical list unless of course you are stoned again. P.S. You forgot those great musicians Cheech and Chong and their big hit Sister Mary Elizabeth.

This friggin thread had better not end like the dating an older woman thread.

Are you stoned again? Because it sounds like you're stoned again.

This is why I hate pot. Not only does it make people stoned idiots all day it also cranks up their excuse-o-rama. Guess what? If we didn't have laws against murder then the jails would be emptier too.

???????? I thought stereotypical bouncy, bubble headed California chicks were good looking. She pretty much missed that part of the stereotype.

I don't see why the ad homonyms get thrown around either. Frankly, I don't get why anything to do with someone's sexual habits ends up being political whether it is homonym or heteronym or binym or whatever.

Danger zone man. Danger zone. Go to about the 1:15 mark

But don't celebrate with a large Pepsi. :wallbash: :huh:

Any updates on this?

There is a one word solution to all of this but if I type it I won't be able to come back here and see the solution. This is quite a dilemma. Maybe jboys should type it because he evidently doesn't have to follow the same rules that I do.

I don't really want to go into a whole lesson on human anatomy just for your sake because this is a family board. What you propose as possible is clearly not. Let's go with what we know: The article states that there were two guys. My statement was not simple conjecture from a picture. It is possible that one of the dudes shaves his legs and that one of the chicks is a euro-chick with hairy and muscular legs, I will grant you that except you would think it would have come up in the trail by lawyers for the defense in an effort to impound the credibility of the dead dude. I have no idea when the guy died but the picture was clearly taken pretty soon after the death because although all 5 legs are unattractive, none of them are rotting like a corpse. In the future please pay attention to details before accusing people of being uninformed. P.S. You are right about one thing. If you were a euro chick you would be pissed at me because euro-chicks are unable to handle the truth and I deal in the truth.

I don't even want to get into the political aspects but your link is sick. Why would they take a picture like that when the guy just died? And did the guy with two legs die or was it the guy with only one leg?

If he changed "plenty" to "plentiful" and took out the "of" it would have been 10/10. As it stands I'll give it 9.5.

I think the expedition started today and yet nothing. Did they disappear?

Well we have a guy who signed a huge contract and then discovered he had a boo boo foot.