Saturday, January 11, 2014

"Smoke gets in your LIES?"

WAIT!  Nobody thought of THIS?  Are you KIDDING me?

I thought legalization of pot was going to help people, help cut criminality down.............?  Right?

NOBODY thought this might happen?  Are we that stupid?   Could drug crime become worse?  The new Al Capone's sharpening his tools?

My favorite part of the article is how the owner of some marijuana shop's going to get a concealed license to protect himself from cartels?  Really?  A pot smoking dope who probably thinks you and I are fascists for not wanting to outlaw guns and he's getting one because he's threatened? :-)

What do you think about the linked article?



DaBlade said...

It's kind of a strange article, as it is entirely speculative. "pot dealers could become targets" - "will likely see a rise in extortion attempts" - "violent cartels could force their way in". I'm not saying there won't be these issues (and more). I'm not a fan of legalized drugs and I never touched marijuana. Just seems like an odd article stating what the author thinks may happen. It is ironic this crowd is arming themselves though.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"A pot smoking dope who probably thinks you and I are fascists for not wanting to outlaw guns and he's getting one because he's threatened?"

Why in the world would you think that a store owner is gong to going to be a "pot smoking dope, who would consider gun owners fascist?" I think you'll find that the overwhelming number of those who advocate for legalization are decidedly Libertarian as opposed to Liberal.

Thersites said...

Paranoia and pot? There's a link???


Thersites said...


JonBerg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sue hanes said...

Z- I think in time things will settle down and it won't be a big deal to buy pot and smoke it.

Bob said...

The only logical thing to do is to legalize all drugs to give the Mexicans a diversity of targets.

The problem is that pot is pretty much an all cash business, like prostitution. Well, I think it is. With all that cash around, the vultures will be out in force.

Impertinent said...

OT but I just had to add this tidbit coming from our 50 asswipes in DC...seatbelts on?

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked a last-ditch effort by Republicans Thursday to restore full military pensions. Their proposal would have been paid for by denying tax credits to undocumented immigrants.

JonBerg said...

Anyone who thinks that the cartels will just go away is nuts. Colorado, being the first of perhaps many states to legalize pot, will be a test case for the cartels and you can expect vigorous overt and covert action on their part to protect their empire.

It's my understanding that we now have excursion buses coming in from out-of-state for the sole purpose of partaking the now [legal] pot. I don't think law enforcement has a clue as how to deal with all of the ramifications and unanticipated consequences that will likley occur. The evolution of this will be interesting to watch, especially here in a hypocritical (liberal) state, where you can't even smoke a tobacco cigarette in a 'dive' bar and which has an expansive DUI industry!

Joe said...

Of course we all know that there will not be any issues surrounding the legalization of MJ. MJ shops will not be a bigger target than the local plumbing shops. There will be no increase in underage people trying to purchase MJ. There will be fewer impaired drivers on the roadways. There is no down side to legalizing MJ. None.


Z said...

DaBlade...VERY ironic this crowd's arming itself; I agree.
But, it does make sense. The criminals will try to win out every time. Look at the awful violence of drug cartels in Mexico!! It's creeping in here from the border, now it's creeping in from WITHIN due to these new laws.

Const. Insur; because I've known pot heads. Libertarian isn't the word I'd use for most :-)

Thersites; hilarious

Bob, I couldn't agree more.


Imp; I'm hoping that's a joke? We are bypassing OUR SOLDIERS for TAX CREDITS TO ILLEGALS? WHAT?

JonBerg; excursion buses? And the state didn't see THAT coming?

Z said...

joe; 'right' :-)

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z, that's not my experience, but your mileage may vary.

To Joe's point....risk is the inherent downside to liberty. If you think impaired drivers are a risk that supercedes liberty, then advocate for the prohibition of alcohol.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z, btw.....if someone who uses marijuana is a "pothead"......then logically one who uses alcohol is an alcoholic or a drunk, no?

Baysider said...

Yup. My first thought when that was passed was 'that's going to tick off a bunch of guys who never played nice with their guns... and don't like their business being undercut.

Z said...

Baysider; it seems it's only our elected officials who're too dumb to see that.

CI.... I guess you'd have preferred if I'd written "those who I've known over the years who frequently imbibe in a marijuana cigarette (I wouldn't use JOINT because may they smoke in a living room, not a joint? :=))are generally liberal.

I just like to write a little more shorthand on the blogs.......

JonBerg said...


"JonBerg; excursion buses? And the state didn't see THAT coming?"

I'm sure that our Governor, John 'Lickenpooper', sees this as a revenue enhancer which goes, by-the-way, to K-12 Education. I kid you not!

Constitutional Insurgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - Like I said, your experience with the political affiliation of those who use marijuana may be very different than mine. But as the legalization or decriminalization of certain substances, is a part of the LP's platform, I think it's fairly safe to say that many who use marijuana are Libertarians.

As for the use of 'pothead', isn't that very bit a pejorative as 'gun nut'?

Joe said...

CI: "If you think impaired drivers are a risk that supercedes liberty, then advocate for the prohibition of alcohol."

Actually, I think proper prohibition would be a good thing. But NOT by the federal government.

That is why I think individual states may do as they want (as long as their citizens want it, and not just the politicians). What I do oppose is the feds getting involved in everything.

"......then logically one who uses alcohol is an alcoholic or a drunk, no?"

Actually, anyone who cannot enjoy a gathering without alcohol is an alcoholic. If you drink alcohol but are just as happy at a party with Pepsi or Iced Tea, then you might not be an alcoholic.


Constitutional Insurgent said...

Joe - "Actually, I think proper prohibition would be a good thing. But NOT by the federal government."

Can't say that I agree with you on prohibition, but I would agree that it should be a state issue, and not a federal one. But we as a society have abrogated that principle many, many years ago.

Likewise, I might disagree with your use of the alcoholic label, but you only framed it in the use of a social gathering, so it's difficult to say. Full disclosure, I'm somewhat of a single malt scotch nerd, but I tend to enjoy it without too many distractions.

Ed Bonderenka said...

My neighbor across the street is a lawyer, a decided Democrat liberal pot smoker and the owner of a "medical marijuana (snort)" clinic.
A libertarian is a social liberal who is fiscally detached from society.
I wouldn't use the term conservative to describe them, even if they might.
But it's a free country.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

"A libertarian is a social liberal who is fiscally detached from society."

Well, you know the problem with tying to label and define something you're not......

But then again, I don't find the GOP remotely Conservative either.

Sadly, we are decidedly NOT a free country.

Bob said...

OK. I feel better, now. I just got the new keyboard for my Dell laptop in the mail, today, and it works. It seems that I spilled some Christmas cheer on the old one.

Lesson learned: Well, I can't think of a thing I learned from the whole experience except that it is difficult to try blogging with an iPad. Of course, the iPad got broken, too, and I had to send it to the great iPad depot in the sky for repair.

Maybe the lesson is to buy more expensive liquor during the holidays. It makes no sense to kill a perfectly good computer with cheap whiskey.

Back to the regular programming...

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I could possible get behind a prohibition against cheap whiskey........if only for moral reasons.....

Bob said...

Ed says, "A libertarian is a social liberal who is fiscally detached from society."

I think I would like to argue with you in the definition, Ed, as I consider myself to have libertarian leanings. I am a social liberal (sort of) but for the most part take a very conservative view of society as a whole, like, pinch hitters should not be allowed in baseball. That's for wussies.

I have been fiscally disconnected from any wealth I might have had by the government. Does this match the libertarian definition?

Bob said...

CI: What is the greater sin. Drinking corn ethanol or burning it in our gas tanks?

I guess I should take it easy on the alcohol comments as it has ruined so many lives, but I cannot help but think that it is a huge mistake, and even a sin, to burn food in our gas tanks.

Z said...

CI? I really couldn't care less, frankly. Sorry you're offended or so sensitive about it. OKAY's pejorative in your world. And pot-smoking libertarians are RAMPANT there...congratulations??

Ed, Bob...I absolutely don't get the 'fiscally detached' definition at ALL...
But love Bob's statement of being fiscally disconnected from wealth by this gov't. Don't worry, Bob; some illegal has become fiscally connected due to you!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Bob - I'm less concerned with the act of burning our food in our rule tanks......than I am with the Federal subsidies/regulations that mandate it. So I think we're in agreement on this.

I can't condone a prohibition on alcohol, when gluttony and sedentary lifestyles have claimed even more lives [by my calculations].

And I see no sin in drinking alcohol in the first place.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - I'm not offended by it. I just note the hypocrisy that you would use a pejorative against a class of citizens based on the exercise of their liberty, that you might disagree with........yet likely not against the class of citizens who exercise similar liberty, yet you more easily identify with.

It's no different than when Liberals use the term "gun nuts".

Z said...

Bob, by the way, is the palsy gone??

Z said...

I happen to disagree...and I think that's ok.

DRUNK is a state of being and a name...nobody who has a cocktail once a day is ever considered A DRUNK.

I'd not consider a person who had a joint from time to time a POTHEAD, either; and didn't imply it.


Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - I think disagreeing is OK too.

Impertinent said...


"anyone who cannot enjoy a gathering without alcohol is an alcoholic.."

Actually that's not true...since alcoholism is considered a disease, than one who cannot drink is considered an alcoholic.

Just as a diabetic can't consume certain things that are unhealthy for them...alcoholics cannot consume alcohol.

One who does consume or a drinker. What level of a drinker is easily determined by the amount they consume at any given time.

You'll find alcoholics in every walk of might find drunks in a gutter but not alcoholics who are tending to their disease by not drinking.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Fiscally detached makes less sense to me now than when I used it.
I'm not sure conservative has any real meaning anymore. Does it mean hearkening to our Founder's values or political structure?
I can't envision our Founders condoning pot. Or polygamy, polyandry, abortion, or homosexual marriage.
Libertarians (not those with "leanings") see no problem with these in general.
There is such a spectrum of those opposed to communism, socialism, etc., that we need a better term to define them than conservative. Perhaps "right wing" serves.
I see extreme libertarians as much as a threat to the nation as Obama, whom we both oppose, because of those positions.
I believe we should have some federal aid for fellow citizens in distress, if only a Katrina event.
Libertarians would perhaps contribute to relief, maybe, but oppose government relief.

Impertinent said...


" it is a huge mistake, and even a sin, to burn food in our gas tanks.."

Not to mention the long term damage to gas engines either. I've been using "Pure Gas" at my local station. Since I have to use Premium anyway in my's the same price and octane rating. I've had long road trips and have never had any problem finding it off the interstates either.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Ed - I woud proffer that Libertarians run the spectrum....some oppose all federal aid, some support limited federal aid. All Libertarians, I would say, oppose the rampant increase in the size and scope of the federal government, that has occurred under both Democratic and Republican Administrations.

I would also feel safe in saying that most Libertarians oppose prohibiting the activities of consenting adults, where they do not harm, steal from or restrict the liberties of their fellow citizens. THIS, in my opinion, is the traditional Conservative position.

I think even the term "right wing" has been tarnished by the big government Republicans who inhabit and inherit the GOP. There are extremes in all parties, the LP, the GOP and the Democrats. They are all likely to be a threat to the principle we all here support.

I disagree with the assertion that the founders would not condone marijuana. They may not imbibe, but I don't believe that they would support both the federal restrictions on marijuana, and the ben more absurd federal restriction on hemp.

Z said...

I think the fact that the term RIGHTWING is now a pejorative in most news venues, etc., is a great example of what a lot of us have been saying here recently about how the right gets treated so much more roughly than the the media, etc.

"extreme leftwing"...honorable, fights for good causes, cares about people and the climate.

"extreme rightwing"...militia nuts, religious freaks, don't give a crap about women, the poor, the sick.....

Typical BS stuff that it's hard to fight; and it ramps up about a month before ever election.

I'll be back later...

Ed Bonderenka said...

CI: I don't know how to phrase this.
I'm exhausted, cranky and irritable because of some misfortunes here at the house in the last couple days, detailed at my blog.
I think you are a decent guy.
I was positing a bogeyman, a construct of my impression of an extreme libertarian.
You may or may not fit that description. But your reaction to my comment speaks volumes towards your character.
We may not agree, but I value your opinion.
And having once been a pothead, reading literature (underground comics) that portrayed toking founders, I still do not see them doing so, or condoning the other more pressing social issues I mentioned.

Baysider said...

Another interesting aspect of this comes from a NY Times article today. The nature of the pot shop is to have to deal in all cash. I thought it was customer driven, but it's bank driven for these reasons:

"Though 20 states and the District of Columbia allow either medical or recreational marijuana use — with more likely to follow suit — the drug remains illegal under federal law. The Controlled Substances Act, enacted in 1970 classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most dangerous category, which also includes heroin, LSD and ecstasy.

As a result, banks, including state-chartered ones, are reluctant to provide traditional services to marijuana businesses. They fear that federal regulators and law enforcement authorities might punish them, with measures like large fines, for violating prohibitions on money-laundering, among other federal laws and regulations."

So these businesses have a target on their back for all criminal opportunists, and many go to great lengths to avoid being a crime victim themselves.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - I think it depends which media you are subjecting yourself to, as to how the left wan right wings are presented. The term Liberal, used to embody what is now thought of as Conservative.

Ed - No worries. I hope the issues on the home front reach a quick and positive conclusion. I think disagreement, like dissent, is a cornerstone of free political discourse. You have always forced me to qualify my position, and I value that.

Though I agree that I don't see the Founders as having warmed up the Hookah.....I would hope you agree that the prohibition on hemp is egregious.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Hemp was federally promoted, at one time, for war time rope production, I believe.
I once stumbled on a large "grove" of hemp in Italy outside of Naples. It really is a hilarious story how we harvested a lot of it one night.
Wouldn't get a fly high.
Older Italians would grow it for birdseed.
Like Hartz Mountain used to have.
Made the birds sing sweeter, they thought.

JonBerg said...


It will ultimately have a bad result on our State. This State has been a magnet for Liberals for the last several years. They , apparently, find the welfare system to be not only generous but, also, accommodating!

The Late John Denver got it right some 40 years ago; this place is going to Hell!

beakerkin said...

A President who was in a group called the Choom Gang should be front and center example of the brain impairment caused by long term pot abuse.

Kid said...

I wrote this on the blog in 2010:
All drugs were legal prior to 1920.
Portugal decriminalized all drugs 8 years ago and have fewer drug addicts.
People who want to do drugs still do them anyway.
After 40 years of the 'war on drugs' any 13 year old can get crystal meth or ecstasy 8 days a week.
Drug trade fuels a huge crime industry.
Illegal drugs are more dangerous.
So what are we accomplishing ?

At this point, I believe the feds bring the hard drugs in and make a Lot of money playing cops and robbers with the subordinate dealers, let alone selling the stuff in the first place.
If the feds really wanted to shut this down they would and could under the subject of National Security. Just go bomb the cocaine makers in Columbia, etc.

And all the reefer that is here isn't coming over in gas tanks and rocker panels across the Mexican border.

Colorado will likely have a problem with the cartels and such because, for one reason, last I heard they were charging 500/oz, the Mexicans can undercut that all day long. The criminalization of maryjane needs to be removed at the federal level as well, and all states legalize it. There will simply be too much in country for the Mexicans to overcome, as the prices will comedown as well.

Frankly, the reason MJ is being legalized, imo, is because there is too much negative ROI on the cops and legal systems messing with it. Costs them too much in police, court, and prison that they don't get back. Tax revenue is just icing on the cake.
Again, all about the money, nothing philosophical going on.

Amsterdam has a truck like a blood truck that goes around everyday and shoots up the heroin addicts.
Eliminates the crime, disease, cops, courts, and prison activity, and the addicts get help without the fear of criminal consequences. Same Plus experienced by Portugal. They don't supply the drugs, just decriminalized.

Final point being that if Kids are your hot button, imagine how many kids Won't be doing drugs because there won't be street dealers hanging around schools.
How many dealers are hanging around schools dealing alcohol? Not much.

WomanHonorThyself said...

and they are discussing using EBT cards to buy pot!!! have an awesome weekend my friend~!

Impertinent said...

Pretty good kid...yup.

Bob said...


I am not a conspiracy person but I appreciate your comments.


Bob said...

Kid: Sorry about the short comment,but as far as conspiracy stuff goes, I will vote for incompetence among the players anytime over conspiracy.

It's kinda like calling the Republican Party a political party. There's no organization or plan whatsoever, but that's just how they roll.

Z said...

CI; I don't subject myself to any media.
And anybody who doesn't realize the MAINSTREAM MEDIA: ABC NBC CBS, ALMOST ALL NEWSPAPERS, etc., is liberal isn't facing reality

Ed..they probably just sounded sweeter :-)'ll be doing more pot; how can they not? How does a decent society say "Hey, you shouldn't do drugs, but hey..they're LEGAL!:)" ridiculous.

We say "you shouldn't DRINK" but there are age limits on that......

IS there an age limit on pot smoking in these states, by the way?
I suppose they'll have to come up with an anti drug about hypocrisy.

At least pot helps a LOT of very sick people.........more than booze does. But, on the rocks with 4 olives, please! :-)

Impertinent said...

4 Olives....? Lush.

Z said...

Imp, I call vodka with an olive "olive soup"...anything over two olives is "olive stew!" I swear I think I drink vodka just for the olives :-)

Kid said...

IMP, Thanks.

BOB, I'm down with that. Just my opinion and we Are free to have our own and should. I don't know everything, could have a different opinion next year.

I personally think the feds brought the drugs in after the Kent State shootings to calm the hippies down, (Not to mention the race riots) then voila, it blossomed into a real money maker for them. Is my thinking.

Kid said...

Z, I don't think kids will be doing more pot, any more than they're doing more alcohol because it's legal. I believe they'll be doing less, because the street dealers will be out of business.

I would support severe penalties for anyone caught dealing once it is legal.

We have some number of alcoholics. We will have some number of pot smokers. So? Pot smokers don't crash into things driving a car while barely being able to see with 10% motor skills.

And people who want to do drugs will do them anyway. I believe fewer kids will be doing it and therefore fewer adults will be doing it because they'll have some sense by the time they can legally buy it. They'll have had 18 years to see the results. Kids grow up and see what alcohol does to people, and I believe many decide 'That's not for me'. Contrast that with dealers pushing alcohol to kids, and I think we'd have more alchies.

JonBerg said...

"Z, I don't think kids will be doing more pot, any more than they're doing more alcohol because it's legal. I believe they'll be doing less, because the street dealers will be out of business."

Honestly my friend, I never thought that you were that naïve!

Kid said...

JonBerg, If it's not streaming in from illegal sources (like alcohol isn't), then how would it get from 'the state store' to the kids?

When we were young we had a source for alsohol, a wino who we paid off in booze to go into the state store to buy us what we wanted, but we were the exception not the rule.

Maybe you're right, but if they bring to street dealers down to a manageable level by cutting out the black market, how could "more kids" be getting it? And why aren't More kids getting alcohol ?

Ed Bonderenka said...

I never hear mentioned that legalization leads to advertisement and the extolling of marijuana to those whose parents tel them otherwise.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - I do get a chuckle anytime someone attempts to frame reality around the issue of bias, when starting from a position of bias.

Bob said...

Up until the Colorado pot legalization, I was all for legalizing the stuff, everywhere. I still think that way. However, we have yet to see what all the ramifications are in terms of more or less crime, and more or less drug usage.

Who foresaw the Federal Government laws scaring the banks into NOT doing business with legitimate businesses? Can can something like this kick-start the universal usage of virtual currencies like bit coins?

Z said...

Bob, the point of my posting this was that it's astonishing experts hadn't foreseen this WOULD happen. How could it be avoided? How could we not think cartels will still want their controlling interest in drugs in America, etc..?

CI...GOOD! I'll just bow to your expertise: "There IS NO LIBERAL BIAS in mainstream bias!" Hurrah! Alert that media.

Ed... I doubt if they'll have ads pushing pot, but...

Kid; I think you're wrong. I pray you're right!

Constitutional Insurgent said...

Z - Why would you ascribe something to me that I didn't imply, much less state? If you disagree that anyone making accusations of bias, themselves start from a position of bias, as it's inherent in all of us.....then simply refute it.

No need to engage in defense mechanisms of projection and sarcasm.

Z said...

CI. You've accused me of that in a hundred ways in the last months. Talking about bias as I come from my own horrible biases, apparently.

Yes, there was a need; I'm really tired of it.

JonBerg said...


" the street dealers will be out of business."

The illegal drug business is a multi, multi billion dollar enterprise. My point is simply that they are not going to pack-up and go home just because MJ is legal. They have the 'Economy of Scale' in their favor not to mention all of the other [products] that they offer.

Ed Bonderenka said...

Cigs are heavily taxed.
I imagine dope will be, too.
Thus, there will be a black market.
And there is no reason to believe it won't be advertised.
What legal drug isn't?

Kid said...

JonBerg, I may be the victim of wishful thinking. We'll see :)

JonBerg said...

The Law that enables MJ sales here in Colorado requires a 10% sales and a 15% excise tax. Fear of 'Black Market' undercutting of price is already being felt. Please check out the link below.

Kid said...

JonBerg, Thanks.

Playing devil's advocate, I will counter with, "how many black market cigarettes are sold here and in Canadia"? The prices are insane and the market is huge.

Just tossing it out friend. Again, this movement needs to go national for my points to carry any weight.

JonBerg said...

"how many black market cigarettes are sold here and in Canadia"?

That's a very good question but I'm clueless. All that I do know is that the illegal drug trade has a long established and vast infrastructure. However,I did hear today that Some Mexicans are starting to form a vigilante movement against it on their side. I guess we'll see where that goes.