Search forums

Forums

Export thread

So... California is in deficit. Propose to legal/tax Pot

Jul 22, 2009#1

Chibibar

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article ... %2C00.html

Yup....

It is actually being considered.

Proponents of marijuana legalization have advanced plenty of arguments in support of their drug of choice — that marijuana is less dangerous than legal substances like cigarettes and alcohol; that pot has legitimate medical uses; that the money spent prosecuting marijuana offenses would be better used on more pressing public concerns.

While 13 states permit the limited sale of marijuana for medical use, and polls show a steady increase in the number of Americans who favor legalization, federal law still bans the cultivation, sale, or possession of marijuana. In fact, the feds still classify marijuana as a Schedule I drug, one that has no \"currently accepted medical use\" in the United States. (See a TIME video on Medical Marijiuana Home Delivery)

But supporters of legalization may have been handed their most convincing argument yet: the bummer economy. Advocates argue that if state or local governments could collect a tax on even a fraction of pot sales, it would help rescue cash-strapped communities. Not surprisingly, the idea is getting traction in California, home to both the nation\"s largest supply of domestically grown marijuana (worth a estimated $14 billion a year) and to the country\"s biggest state budget deficit (more than $26 billion).

On Monday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California legislative leaders a tentative budget agreement to plug the state's deficit, but it would involve making sweeping cuts in education and health services, as well as taking billions from county governments. Democratic state assemblyman Tom Ammiano has introduced legislation that would let California regulate and tax the sale of marijuana. The state's proposed $50 an ounce pot tax would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in additional revenue. Ammiano's bill was shelved this session but he expects to introduce a revised bill early next year. (Read \"Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?\")

If the state legislature doesn\"t act, perhaps California voters will. One group is preparing to place a statewide initiative for the November 2010 ballot that would regulate and tax the sale of marijuana for Californians 21 years of age and older. Tellingly, the group spearheading the measure calls itself TaxCannabis2010.org, stressing the revenue advantages of marijuana legalization. The group hopes to collect the required 650,000 voter signatures by January to place the measure on the November 2010 ballot.

\"There\"s no doubt that the ground is shifting on marijuana,\" says Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which promotes alternatives to the war on drugs. \"The discussion about regulating and taxing marijuana now has an air of legitimacy to it that it didn\"t quite have before. And the economy has given the issue a real turbo charge.\" (Read \"Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?\")

The legalization effort is getting serious consideration from surprising quarters. In May, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger publicly called for a large-scale study to determine whether to legalize and tax marijuana.

\"I think it\"s time for a debate,\" the governor said at a news conference. \"I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs.\" (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture)

In California, medical marijuana sales are already taxed, and some communities are looking for ways to get a bigger slice of the pot pie. Residents Oakland are currently voting in a mail-in special election that includes a measure which would make the city the first in the country to establish a new tax rate for medical marijuana businesses. If the measure passes, Oakland marijuana dispensaries, which are now charged at the general tax rate of $1.20 per $1,000 in receipts, would see that rate raised to $18 per $1,000.

A Field Poll conducted in California this spring showed 56% of the state\"s registered voters in support of legalizing and taxing marijuana as a way of offsetting some of the budget deficit. Several national polls have shown that more than 45% of American adults are open to legalizing pot, about double the support a decade ago.

Even the most ardent marijuana advocates aren\"t expecting nationwide legalization anytime soon. Instead, any action is likely to come on the state and local level. For now, all eyes are on cash-strapped California, where high taxes could take on an entirely new meaning.

Jul 22, 2009#2

The Lovely Boehner

I fully support this and hope it goes through, but this alone will not save California by a long shot.

Jul 22, 2009#3

Chibibar

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I fully support this and hope it goes through, but this alone will not save California by a long shot.

man... can you imagine the back taxes on those "street sellers"

I can see the IRS swooping in to collect those back taxes on Marijuana (50$ an ounce??? )

Jul 22, 2009#4

Espy

DO EEEET.

Jul 22, 2009#5

Is it okay to say this is karma for voting against gay marriage?

Jul 22, 2009#6

The Lovely Boehner

ThatNickGuy said:
Is it okay to say this is karma for voting against gay marriage?

Why do you think legal pot is a bad thing?

Jul 22, 2009#7

Ravenpoe

Charlie Dont Surf said:
ThatNickGuy said:

Is it okay to say this is karma for voting against gay marriage?

Click to expand...

Why do you think legal pot is a bad thing?

He could have meant the deficit.

Jul 22, 2009#8

I did, in fact. Though I don't really see the point or appeal of pot. And I'm pretty sure I'm allergic to it (gagging to the near point of choking when even getting a whiff of it). But to each their own.

But yeah, I did mean the deficit.

Jul 22, 2009#9

Shakey

The problem is I doubt the Feds are going to let any of this happen. It's good to at least get the government thinking seriously about it though.

Jul 22, 2009#10

Covar

so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

Jul 22, 2009#11

Jake

Covar said:
so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

They may have been misplaced. The researchers totally had them a second ago, but... so they were about to... dude, Family Guy is on!

Jul 22, 2009#12

Chibibar

Jake said:
Covar said:

so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

Click to expand...

They may have been misplaced. The researchers totally had them a second ago, but... so they were about to... dude, Family Guy is on!

more like...... dude!! I'm hungry!! lets go get some munchies

edit: I wonder if they would take volunteers for a new study...

Jul 22, 2009#13

HoboNinja

$50 and ounce tax would still encourage illegal sales because thats going to drive the price up a ton. It's about $80 an ounce for swag and $120 for dro in Iowa. I don't know how much the legal dispensaries sell for in California but I am betting its still a good amount of money and adding a $50 tax on that will probably bring it above the illegal prices.

Jul 22, 2009#14

Chibibar

HoboNinja said:
$50 and ounce tax would still encourage illegal sales because thats going to drive the price up a ton. It's about $80 an ounce for swag and $120 for dro in Iowa. I don't know how much the legal dispensaries sell for in California but I am betting its still a good amount of money and adding a $50 tax on that will probably bring it above the illegal prices.

question would be if the law pass and a person caught selling it (illegally) would that person be charge for back taxes?

Jul 22, 2009#15

Shakey

Selling it legally would probably drop the price of it though. A good chunk of the price now has to do with it being illegal. How much is it selling for legally as medication now?

Jul 22, 2009#16

Tress

I just got word on my huge new tuition fees due to ridiculous cuts to the education budget. I say tax the shit out of whatever you want. I'm getting ready to leave this piece of shit state anyway.

Jul 22, 2009#17

Le Quack

Covar said:
so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

Second hand smoke is really only a problem if the 2nd hander is constantly(hours at a time) in an enclosed environment.

Jul 22, 2009#18

Necronic

HoboNinja said:
$50 and ounce tax would still encourage illegal sales because thats going to drive the price up a ton. It's about $80 an ounce for swag and $120 for dro in Iowa. I don't know how much the legal dispensaries sell for in California but I am betting its still a good amount of money and adding a $50 tax on that will probably bring it above the illegal prices.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY:1w72bw7l][/youtube:1w72bw7l]

Wow are you wrong.

Weed, takes almost nothing to make. It is incredibly robust plant. There is a reason it is called weed. It would probably cost less than a dollar per pound to make once production gets going. Almost all of the cost of marijuana comes from the incredible logistics necessary to move it across the country.

Moreover, the current quality of swag vs the expected quality of well produced and manufactured MJ would be somewhere along the lines of the quality difference between TOPS/Bugler tobacco and Gauloise tobacco.

Jul 22, 2009#19

Koko

Shakey said:
Selling it legally would probably drop the price of it though. A good chunk of the price now has to do with it being illegal. How much is it selling for legally as medication now?

Not necessarily, I get better prices than any dispensary I've seen.
The more middlemen and the smaller individual quantities you buy the more it arbitrarily gets jacked up.

Covar said:
so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

Necronic said:
To achieve maximum results, there's a great deal of maintenance and preparation (trimming) that goes into the process...if you stick it in a pot by the window it will grow but will likely be pretty lame.

Jul 23, 2009#20

Frankie Williamson

I'm all for the legalization and taxation of pot. Would make my job much easier.

Jul 23, 2009#21

Bowielee

As long as they regulate it, much the same way that they do alcohol, I'm all for legalization.

I just don't want to have to smell it.

Jul 23, 2009#22

@Li3n

This is obviously a plot by the Rainbow Mafia... first they screw up the economy, then they legalise MJ for "tax purposes"... then when everyone is high they convince them to repel Prop 8... sneaky.

Jul 23, 2009#23

Covar

Koko said:
Covar said:

so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

Click to expand...

Its a valid question. People are so adamant about legalizing it, but I've never seen any study on secondhand effects. Say what you want I don't have to worry about booze getting me drunk if my neighbors drinking it.

Jul 23, 2009#24

Mr_Chaz

@Li3n said:
This is obviously a plot by the Rainbow Mafia... first they screw up the economy, then they legalise MJ for "tax purposes"... then when everyone is high they convince them to repel Prop 8... sneaky.

Michael Jackson was illegal?!? Well that kinda explains why he never grew up properly if he had to be in hiding all the time.

Jul 23, 2009#25

Frankie said:
I'm all for the legalization and taxation of pot. Would make my job much easier.

This is from a cop, folks. End of argument. I don't smoke it and I say legalize it. It's better for society than alcohol and that's legal. Illegal pot makes no sense at all and never has.

Jul 23, 2009#26

@Li3n

What, he's not a dealer?! And me here thinking i could score some pot off him.

Jul 23, 2009#27

Chibibar

Edrondol said:
Frankie said:

I'm all for the legalization and taxation of pot. Would make my job much easier.

Click to expand...

This is from a cop, folks. End of argument. I don't smoke it and I say legalize it. It's better for society than alcohol and that's legal. Illegal pot makes no sense at all and never has.

doesn't pot make people mellow? (I never smoke it but hear stories) so makes it easier for cop to arrest people

less resistance.

Jul 23, 2009#28

@Li3n

But less tazing = less fun.

Jul 23, 2009#29

Seraphyn

Frankie said:
I'm all for the legalization and taxation of pot. Would make my job much easier.

I too, think it's a waste of time, money and effort to go after / process pot smokers. From what little I know of US pot use, it seems to be a law that is broken so often that maintaining it just seems silly if there aren't big dangers behind using it.

Jul 23, 2009#30

Shegokigo

If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... :eek:

rly:

Jul 23, 2009#31

Jake

Shegokigo said:
If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... rly:

Jul 23, 2009#32

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... rly:

I wouldn't be surprise Shego. Why?

cause smoking weed is not a sin

(at least not any of my religious friend said so yet. unless they lump it with Cigarettes and alcohols)

Jul 23, 2009#33

Shegokigo

Chibibar said:
Shegokigo said:

If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... rly:

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprise Shego. Why?

cause smoking weed is not a sin (at least not any of my religious friend said so yet. unless they lump it with Cigarettes and alcohols)

To most "highly religious" it's exactly the same as smoking cigs. Anything to "harm the body" is as to "harming the Lord" to them.
That's why I'd be freakin pissed off if one were to pass over the other.

Jul 23, 2009#34

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
Chibibar said:

Shegokigo said:

If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... rly:

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprise Shego. Why?

cause smoking weed is not a sin (at least not any of my religious friend said so yet. unless they lump it with Cigarettes and alcohols)

Click to expand...

To most "highly religious" it's exactly the same as smoking cigs. Anything to "harm the body" is as to "harming the Lord" to them.
That's why I'd be freakin pissed off if one were to pass over the other.

true... but some religion they don't mind. I know many Christians (at least not "hard core") smokes.... but hate gays... yea double standard.

Jul 23, 2009#35

@Li3n

How is that double standards?!

I mean Jesus didn't turn water into prune juice, now did he?

Jul 23, 2009#36

Chibibar

@Li3n said:
How is that double standards?!

I mean Jesus didn't turn water into prune juice, now did he?

I was referring to the "harm the body" = "harm the lord" that some didn't quite follow that mantra. Some hard the body = sin. Gays = sin.. so technically double standard (at least that is how I view it)

It is like it is "okay" to molest boys, but not ok to be gay... what is up with that? (note: I put down okay in quotes since those are look the other way until recently)

note/edit: the above remark was about the Catholic priests.

but anyways...... it would be interesting to see if the state would pass a Pot Tax or not and what would the Feds do about it.

Jul 23, 2009#37

Shegokigo

Jul 23, 2009#38

GasBandit

Shegokigo said:
If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... rly:

Not as much tax revenue in gay marriage. In fact, when you start filing jointly, it will actually lower tax revenues. Don't worry though, gay marriage is coming. It's inevitable, despite the best efforts of your fellow gays to generate antipathy among the breeders by acting like an impatient child stamping the collective foot, delaying what had previously been a smooth and straight trend toward acceptance.

At any rate, I'm all for the legalization and taxation of marijuana. It's smell is no more awful than tobacco, and it can be controlled similarly. Plus, it will have the added benefit of stripping revenue from criminal enterprises (this would apply to any drug, really).

Jul 23, 2009#39

Tress

GasBandit said:
Don't worry though, gay marriage is coming. It's inevitable, despite the best efforts of your fellow gays to generate antipathy among the breeders by acting like an impatient child stamping the collective foot, delaying what had previously been a smooth and straight trend toward acceptance.

Jul 23, 2009#40

Koko

Covar said:
Koko said:

Covar said:

so where are the studies on the effects of secondhand smoke?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Its a valid question. People are so adamant about legalizing it, but I've never seen any study on secondhand effects. Say what you want I don't have to worry about booze getting me drunk if my neighbors drinking it.

The lack of study on secondhand effects is due to the inconclusive nature on the harmful effects of firsthand smoke.

Also, unless you're in a closed room & hotboxing, you're not getting high on the exhaled smoke, almost all THC is absorbed in the lungs after 3-5 seconds.

And regardless, it's inconceivable that there wouldn't be major restrictions that would put what cigarette smokers have to go through to shame.

Jul 23, 2009#41

Le Quack

OMG I might smell the smoke that got someone high.

You won't get high off second hand weed smoke, and if you do, you are probably smoking weed anyway.

Jul 23, 2009#42

Rob King

Shegokigo said:
Chibibar said:

Shegokigo said:

If pot legalization passes before gay marriage...... rly:

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprise Shego. Why?

cause smoking weed is not a sin (at least not any of my religious friend said so yet. unless they lump it with Cigarettes and alcohols)

Click to expand...

To most "highly religious" it's exactly the same as smoking cigs. Anything to "harm the body" is as to "harming the Lord" to them.
That's why I'd be freakin pissed off if one were to pass over the other.

This is why you'll never find Republicans at McDonalds.

Jul 24, 2009#43

Koko

heart disease is the #1 killer in America
does the Vatican boycott trans fat?
:thumbsdown:

Jul 24, 2009#44

@Li3n

Greed = one of the 7 deadly sins... so yeah they do...

Chibibar said:
@Li3n said:

How is that double standards?!

I mean Jesus didn't turn water into prune juice, now did he?

Click to expand...

I was referring to the "harm the body" = "harm the lord" that some didn't quite follow that mantra. Some harm the body = sin. Gays = sin.. so technically double standard (at least that is how I view it)

You don't think wine can harm the body!?

Jul 24, 2009#45

Shegokigo

It's not "wine" it's the "blood of christ" and it's taken during mass and presented by the pastor.

Drinking "wine" at home would be a "sin".

Jul 24, 2009#46

@Li3n

Shegokigo said:
Drinking "wine" at home would be a "sin".

I keep forgetting that Protestants and Catholics are bonkers... (and i wasn't even referring to that part of the Bible, but the wedding where they didn't have enough wine, if that's not at home i don't know what is).

Jul 24, 2009#47

Le Quack

What are their besides protestant and catholics?

Pretty much all denominations are protestant.

Jul 24, 2009#48

@Li3n

Le Quack said:
What are their besides protestant and catholics?

Pretty much all denominations are protestant.

Catholic has been a denomination for almost over 1000 years...

Jul 24, 2009#49

Le Quack

Besides Protestant and catholic, what other types of christianity are there?

When you said "Protestant and Catholics are Bonkers" what other kinds of christians are there?

Jul 24, 2009#50

drawn_inward

Shegokigo said:
It's not "wine" it's the "blood of christ" and it's taken during mass and presented by the pastor.

Drinking "wine" at home would be a "sin".

Really? Give me the verse that says so. I've never seen anything that says smoking, drinking, trans-fat, etc is a "sin." I think there are some recommendations in there, but no language stating sin.

But, that depends on your definition of sin. Some folks think eating pork is a sin. Wearing clothes from a mixture of fabric is a sin. There are 613 commandments, depending on how you look at things.

I pretty much draw the sin line firmly on the big 10, but sin is usually defined as something that separates you from God.

I'm sure Espy could state this a bit more eloquently.

Jul 24, 2009#51

@Li3n

@Le Quack

Well there's us, the Assyrians and the Orientals... that i know of having survived to the present day... though there might be others that are so heretical (as in different) they don't seem like Christianity at all.

But let me guess, you think the Pope was always in charge until Luther, right?

Jul 24, 2009#52

Papillon

Shegokigo said:
Drinking "wine" at home would be a "sin".

This is completely untrue:

the Bible said:
No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." (1 Timothy 5:23)

Jesus' first miracle was making an extra 120 - 180 gallons of wine for a wedding reception after they ran out.

Jul 24, 2009#53

@Li3n

I already mentioned that.

Jul 24, 2009#54

Shegokigo

Obviously you read more into what I was saying, hence I used the "quotes".

If you abuse any substance that causes your body damage, willfully. It's considered a sin.

Jul 24, 2009#55

@Li3n

Shegokigo said:
If you abuse any substance that causes your body damage, wilfully. It's considered a sin.

Like food...

Jul 24, 2009#56

Koko

Le Quack said:
Besides Protestant and catholic, what other types of christianity are there?

When you said "Protestant and Catholics are Bonkers" what other kinds of christians are there?

eastern orthodox

Jul 24, 2009#57

Bowielee

@Li3n said:
Shegokigo said:

If you abuse any substance that causes your body damage, wilfully. It's considered a sin.

Click to expand...

Like food...

Well, yeah, gluttony is one of the big seven.

Jul 24, 2009#58

@Li3n

As stated before... i just didn't want to use the same words...

Koko said:
Le Quack said:

Besides Protestant and catholic, what other types of christianity are there?

When you said "Protestant and Catholics are Bonkers" what other kinds of christians are there?

Click to expand...

eastern orthodox

He knows too much...

aranoid:

Jul 24, 2009#59

Covar

As a Catholic I find some of these assumptions about us ludicrous. A catholic thinking drinking is a sin. hilarious. especially when you consider the largest religion among the Irish.

Jul 24, 2009#60

sixpackshaker

Koko said:
heart disease is the #1 killer in America
does the Vatican boycott trans fat?

Gluttony is one of the big 7.

Jul 24, 2009#61

Chibibar

the only thing I remember from bible study from the old testiment is

Thy shall not eat animal of split hooves (back then it was pigs - also my wording might be off but that is what I remember)

In Theology class, people are "god fearing" bunch. So it is EASIER for the religious leaders of the land to put in "laws" into the bible and people generally follow without question (back then) than to say the lord of the castle to tell the masses "don't eat pigs cause they are diseased" but the masses are likely to believe "don't eat pig cause God said so"

Jul 24, 2009#62

Shegokigo

Covar said:
As a Catholic I find some of these assumptions about us ludicrous. A catholic thinking drinking is a sin. hilarious. especially when you consider the largest religion among the Irish.

Reading comprehension failed.

I know what I know, due to being a Catholic deacon's daughter and growing up in an extremely religious family and household.

Jul 24, 2009#63

Rob King

Shegokigo said:
Obviously you read more into what I was saying, hence I used the "quotes".

If you abuse any substance that causes your body damage, willfully. It's considered a sin.

... Depending on who you ask. We're at the point in our society that you can dig up something damaging about nearly everything. When you discover that wiping your ass in the wrong way is a step down the road to cancer, I think you're going to see a whole lot of Christians dropping the "bad for you = sin" bullshit.

-- Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:11 am --

Shegokigo said:
Covar said:

As a Catholic I find some of these assumptions about us ludicrous. A catholic thinking drinking is a sin. hilarious. especially when you consider the largest religion among the Irish.

Click to expand...

Reading comprehension failed.

I know what I know, due to being a Catholic deacon's daughter and growing up in an extremely religious family and household.

This indicates to me that you've probably been misinformed.

Anybody who can be identified as 'extremely religious,' in my experience, can't be trusted to speak for whichever denomination they are a part of. They embellish, put their own spin on things, or otherwise take the rules of their movement a step or two too far for the sake of piety.

Jul 24, 2009#64

@Li3n

Shegokigo said:
I know what I know, due to being a Catholic deacon's daughter and growing up in an extremely religious family and household.

Why is that always so?!

Gluttony is one of the big 7.

Oh right, Greed is Avarice... my bad.

Jul 24, 2009#65

Chibibar

since Pot is a Cat 1 drug on the Fed level, how is it that CA allow dispensary in the first place?

Jul 24, 2009#66

Shakey

Chibibar said:
since Pot is a Cat 1 drug on the Fed level, how is it that CA allow dispensary in the first place?

They look the other way. They did bust a few at first. I don't think they would go for non-prescription use though.

Jul 24, 2009#67

Jake

Shegokigo said:
I know what I know, due to being a Catholic deacon's daughter and growing up in an extremely religious family and household.

Did you at some point wear a Catholic schoolgirl uniform? Just need the facts for, you know, science

aranoid:

Jul 24, 2009#68

Chibibar

Jake said:
Shegokigo said:

I know what I know, due to being a Catholic deacon's daughter and growing up in an extremely religious family and household.

Click to expand...

Did you at some point wear a Catholic schoolgirl uniform? Just need the facts for, you know, science aranoid:

better yet.. got a picture?

Jul 24, 2009#69

Shegokigo

Of me from 5-9?

Jul 24, 2009#70

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
Of me from 5-9?

no.. in current form

Jul 24, 2009#71

Shegokigo

Chibibar said:
Shegokigo said:

Of me from 5-9?

Click to expand...

no.. in current form

The "Catholic Girl" uniforms I have in my closet now aren't quite the same as the ones I wore back then though....

Tell you what. I'll show you the 5-9yrs old ones and let Mr. Hansen know, or I can show you a recent one and immediately make small slits directly on your eyes with my paring knife. Like little papercuts directly on the eye....

Jul 24, 2009#72

Chibibar

Shegokigo said:
Chibibar said:

Shegokigo said:

Of me from 5-9?

Click to expand...

no.. in current form

Click to expand...

The "Catholic Girl" uniforms I have in my closet now aren't quite the same as the ones I wore back then though....

Tell you what. I'll show you the 5-9yrs old ones and let Mr. Hansen know, or I can show you a recent one and immediately make small slits directly on your eyes with my paring knife. Like little papercuts directly on the eye....

I'll take my chances on the recent one

I still got plenty of teeth (healthy one) to use as eye balls

My wife oogles at my old highschool colorguard days (I do look good on that one) and my old youngin pic... does this mean she needs to talk to Hanson too?

Jul 24, 2009#73

The Lovely Boehner

ugh. I'm not sure what's lamer in this thread. The creepiness or the impotent threats of violence.

Jul 24, 2009#74

Shegokigo

Charlie Dont Surf said:
ugh. I'm not sure what's lamer in this thread. The creepiness or the impotent threats of violence.

Neither. It's your presence in this thread that takes that nomination. :toocool:

Jul 24, 2009#75

Jake

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm ... impotent

Jul 24, 2009#76

The Lovely Boehner

I'm actually probably going to get a vasectomy sometime in the future.

Jul 24, 2009#77

Shegokigo

Charlie Dont Surf said:
I'm actually probably going to get a vasectomy sometime in the future.

....... and the world breathed a sigh of relief. :zoid:

Jul 24, 2009#78

Rob King

Jake said:
Charlie Dont Surf said:

I'm ... impotent

Click to expand...

I read that as "I'm ... important," and laughed hard at the commentary I thought you were making.

Jul 25, 2009#79

Tress

Charlie Dont Surf said:
ugh. I'm not sure what's lamer in this thread. The creepiness or the impotent threats of violence.

I'm going to vote for the creepiness. I'm unclear as to how we went from California legalize pot to people trying to get pics of Shego in a school girl uniform, but it's disturbing.

The impotent threats of violence are just par for the course.

Jul 25, 2009#80

blotsfan

Chibibar said:
Thy shall not eat animal of split hooves (back then it was pigs - also my wording might be off but that is what I remember)

Yeah, it actually says you can only eat animals with split hooves that chew their cud. Pigs are just notable as they are the only split hoofed animal that doesn't chew its cud.

Forums