I don't always agree with you, but that doesn't matter (no one is right 100% of the time). You make your arguments well and you are entertaining as hell. You contribute to the world of ideas, and even if you aren't always right (as I contend), you advance the ball!
@davidpakman, I think libertarians would be more happy if Vermont didn't regulate access to plant matter. In Britain people need a license to own, operate, and watch TV, that's a good example of stupid legislation. Just as it's stupid to regulate what plant products people choose to consume.
You also claimed that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK, before he realized they smoked pot. Do you have proof of your claim that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK or are you just making things up to smear him?
The facts alone, or his stance on the drug war alone is enough to make him look bad. No need to fabricate, or summon the whole racist viral mind meme. It's tired, and played out, and unless you can prove it, it just speaks volumes about your character and intentions.
Far too often, the mainstream media has used anonymous sources as a weapon in order to cast aspersions onto their political opponents. The trick isn't working anymore. They don't realize it, but the people using these techniques are steadily destroying their collective reputations, and credibility. Just look at the viewership of the Grammy's from last night as they quoted from that garbage book, written by Wolff.
Real people who know how to think, they're quite sick of the crap, and BS claims. They want substance, not non-sense, lies, rumors and innuendo. When I was watching your video I was like, wow I can finally agree with this guy on something, but then you polluted it with the Sessions claim.
Companies like CNN who have weaponized themselves for their masters fail to realize that it's a double-edged sword. They've destroyed themselves completely and don't even know it. Many other outlets are following suit. To be quite frank, it's a pleasure watching them destroy themselves.
Im not full out libertarian - but id support legalisation of all drugs for recreational use. Well, all which arent potent enough to be more likely used as a chemical weapon than for recreational purposes anyways. Heroin definatly, fentanyl is pushing it, carfentanyl (which is far more potent than fentanyl) definatly not.
I agree with you about fentanyl, and carfentanyl, as they can be a danger to non drug users by simply coming into contact with it. Heroin on the other hand, if they legalized that, then survival of the fittest would take hold. Instead of cops conducting no-knock raids and hurting innocent bystanders, or putting people in cages. Addicts could safely be addicts, wherever they choose. Insurance companies though, they ought to have the right to not cover health issues arising from the voluntary use of heroin, or whatever drug they list in their contract.
Yeah i think it would actualy reduce ODs as well. At least unintentional ODs, thats usualy related to usualy having an impure product and when you have a purer product using the same amount as before. As for coverage, i think it should be covered but this coverage financed by taxing it. To the degree it actualy leads to more costs. For instance, if it has some costs but like tobacco removes primarily the last few years of your life which would otherwise be quite expensive, both should be taken into account.
Yes you can argue that not all people would let it come to any healthproblems, but in the end i think that makes the most sense. After all, espacialy if you are still young, you being more productive might in the end bring more money back in than the therapy required for that to happen. I dont think other people should have to cover that though so taxing it for that purpose makes the most sense to me.
Of course, all drugs should be legal, it's the choice of every individual what they put in their body. Additionally to that, the war on "drugs" or rather on liberty was already lost before it started, people who want to do drugs, do drugs. People who don't do them, just don't, it's statistically proven that legalizing or decriminalization of a certain drug doesn't produce more drug users, no matter where this has been done in the world.
Why would it just be an assumption? What you put in your body is your thing. Driving on opioids is another thing, because you could seriously hurt or kill others, but that's not the point bc these are two different things.
You can't "legalize" marijuana, because that would imply that the government is granting you a right. They have merely repealed an unjust law that prohibited you from trading and consuming marijuana.
They're not GIVING you a right, they're still taking your rights away. You should frame it this way.
It’s a step forward, the place that really needs to legalize is Chicago, or rather shitcago. The amount of increasing taxes is driving so many people out of the state 😂 Vermont is smart! Keep the people and the tax dollars.
i think thats a super wrong policy for drugs in all over the world.
im agree with some special use like parkinson persons or ...
but for everybody i find it so un-safe and wrong decesion...
Yes, this is a smart move on Vermont's part. It increases the amount of tax that the state receives and it also minimizes the amount of people that are incarcerated do to drug related crimes. Which in turn also helps the state because they do not need to maintain those inmates
The government should not be regulating the consumption of a plant. The plant was here before the government and will be here after it.
I happen to agree with you
I don't always agree with you, but that doesn't matter (no one is right 100% of the time). You make your arguments well and you are entertaining as hell. You contribute to the world of ideas, and even if you aren't always right (as I contend), you advance the ball!
@davidpakman, I think libertarians would be more happy if Vermont didn't regulate access to plant matter. In Britain people need a license to own, operate, and watch TV, that's a good example of stupid legislation. Just as it's stupid to regulate what plant products people choose to consume.
You also claimed that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK, before he realized they smoked pot. Do you have proof of your claim that Jeff Sessions liked the KKK or are you just making things up to smear him?
The facts alone, or his stance on the drug war alone is enough to make him look bad. No need to fabricate, or summon the whole racist viral mind meme. It's tired, and played out, and unless you can prove it, it just speaks volumes about your character and intentions.
Far too often, the mainstream media has used anonymous sources as a weapon in order to cast aspersions onto their political opponents. The trick isn't working anymore. They don't realize it, but the people using these techniques are steadily destroying their collective reputations, and credibility. Just look at the viewership of the Grammy's from last night as they quoted from that garbage book, written by Wolff.
Real people who know how to think, they're quite sick of the crap, and BS claims. They want substance, not non-sense, lies, rumors and innuendo. When I was watching your video I was like, wow I can finally agree with this guy on something, but then you polluted it with the Sessions claim.
Companies like CNN who have weaponized themselves for their masters fail to realize that it's a double-edged sword. They've destroyed themselves completely and don't even know it. Many other outlets are following suit. To be quite frank, it's a pleasure watching them destroy themselves.
Im not full out libertarian - but id support legalisation of all drugs for recreational use. Well, all which arent potent enough to be more likely used as a chemical weapon than for recreational purposes anyways. Heroin definatly, fentanyl is pushing it, carfentanyl (which is far more potent than fentanyl) definatly not.
I agree with you about fentanyl, and carfentanyl, as they can be a danger to non drug users by simply coming into contact with it. Heroin on the other hand, if they legalized that, then survival of the fittest would take hold. Instead of cops conducting no-knock raids and hurting innocent bystanders, or putting people in cages. Addicts could safely be addicts, wherever they choose. Insurance companies though, they ought to have the right to not cover health issues arising from the voluntary use of heroin, or whatever drug they list in their contract.
Yeah i think it would actualy reduce ODs as well. At least unintentional ODs, thats usualy related to usualy having an impure product and when you have a purer product using the same amount as before. As for coverage, i think it should be covered but this coverage financed by taxing it. To the degree it actualy leads to more costs. For instance, if it has some costs but like tobacco removes primarily the last few years of your life which would otherwise be quite expensive, both should be taken into account.
Yes you can argue that not all people would let it come to any healthproblems, but in the end i think that makes the most sense. After all, espacialy if you are still young, you being more productive might in the end bring more money back in than the therapy required for that to happen. I dont think other people should have to cover that though so taxing it for that purpose makes the most sense to me.
Of course, all drugs should be legal, it's the choice of every individual what they put in their body. Additionally to that, the war on "drugs" or rather on liberty was already lost before it started, people who want to do drugs, do drugs. People who don't do them, just don't, it's statistically proven that legalizing or decriminalization of a certain drug doesn't produce more drug users, no matter where this has been done in the world.
Free to put whatever you want in your body, assuming it doesn't hurt others, right?
Why would it just be an assumption? What you put in your body is your thing. Driving on opioids is another thing, because you could seriously hurt or kill others, but that's not the point bc these are two different things.
You can't "legalize" marijuana, because that would imply that the government is granting you a right. They have merely repealed an unjust law that prohibited you from trading and consuming marijuana.
They're not GIVING you a right, they're still taking your rights away. You should frame it this way.
Well said @twkaiser!
It’s a step forward, the place that really needs to legalize is Chicago, or rather shitcago. The amount of increasing taxes is driving so many people out of the state 😂 Vermont is smart! Keep the people and the tax dollars.
i think thats a super wrong policy for drugs in all over the world.
im agree with some special use like parkinson persons or ...
but for everybody i find it so un-safe and wrong decesion...
Yes, this is a smart move on Vermont's part. It increases the amount of tax that the state receives and it also minimizes the amount of people that are incarcerated do to drug related crimes. Which in turn also helps the state because they do not need to maintain those inmates
recreational sales are still not allowed so there will be no tax revenue going to the government.
I knew not all Republicans sucked on this issue!
marijuana is very much its benefits, just we are wrong to use it.