Then they decided to "legalize" it. This just meant that the Elitists wanted to control its sale and get their cut of the profits. So they added more laws (More laws = less freedom) which means that they needed more money to launder... er... "enforce the law".

I suspect that it was the same sort of conspiracy with alcohol. Alcohol isn't really that harmful. A few people drink too much of it, but that's about the extent of it. And because of that lame excuse, that's why we have liquor control boards, $1 million dollar liquor licenses, the ATF, AA, TTB, NIAAA, illegal alcohol sales sting operations, and countless other taxpayer funded crap devoted to alcohol.

Now we're doing it all over again, this time with weed, and lousy weed that barely even gets anyone high.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

I suspect that it was the same sort of conspiracy with alcohol.

I don't know about conspiracy. More like "never let a good tragedy go to waste."

A bunch of Elitists, who presume to know what's best for everyone, decides that alcohol is bad. So they get Prohibition enacted.

To the surprise of no one with a couple of brain cells, that led to a black market in alcohol. Which led to organized crime, which expanded out from bootlegging.

So they fix the actual problem - Prohibition - by un-enacting it. But then they have to "make sure it doesn't happen again" by creating other kinds of Prohibition. Like the bureaucracy that takes more of our freedom and tax money.

Now, the only organized crime around alcohol is the gov't itself.

Now we're doing it all over again, this time with weed, and lousy weed that barely even gets anyone high.

It worked so well for alcohol, why not?


... No Credit, Bad Credit? No Problem. No Money? Problem.
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

Now we're doing it all over again, this time with weed, and lousy wee that barely even gets anyone high.

It worked so well for alcohol, why not?

The thing is, weed's not very addictive, and it's not very reliable either. If someone wants to get drunk, alcohol will work 99% of the time, but weed is very wishy-washy. It's very easy to harvest it too early or too late, and it's very probable to end up purchasing stuff that's got very little THC in it. To me, it will never be worth more than $10 a gram, and paying tax on something that has a 50-50 chance of getting me stoned is out of the question.

But the elites haven't come to this realization because they're high on numbers. Weed is basically garbage, and they're building all this idiotic bureaucracy for nothing. The consumers are figuring it out, and I don't have high hopes for their little "industry" that they think they're running.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)

Aaron Thomas wrote to Dr. What <=-

The thing is, weed's not very addictive, and it's not very reliable either. If someone wants to get drunk, alcohol will work 99% of the
time, but weed is very wishy-washy. It's very easy to harvest it too
early or too late, and it's very probable to end up purchasing stuff that's got very little THC in it.

This doesn't susprise me. Weed is produce and like all produce, it will vary.

There was a controversy not too long ago about cigarette manufacturers "adding nicotine to their cigarettes to make them more addictive." The fact was that the manufacturers were simply trying (and succeeding, it looks like) to make a consistent product.

But the elites haven't come to this realization because they're high on numbers.

They are high on the idea of control and money.

Weed is basically garbage, and they're building all this
idiotic bureaucracy for nothing.

Oh, they are building it for something, just not what they say they are building it for.

The consumers are figuring it out, and
I don't have high hopes for their little "industry" that they think they're running.

Personally, I don't understand why anyone would pay for a plant that grows nearly anywhere.


... A fool with a tool is a well-equipped fool
___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)

early or too late, and it's very probable to end up purchasing stuff that's got very little THC in it.

This doesn't susprise me. Weed is produce and like all produce, it will vary.

Back in the 90s, I used to buy weed illegally and it was kinda consistent. But why would a dispensary want to sell weed that has plenty of THC in it? It's better for the business to sell stuff that's lost it's potency, because that way people will smoke more, they'll buy more, and if anyone complains about potency the dispensary will just say "our products are tested for potency and you have probably built up a tolerance for it."

That's my experience anyway. I was smoking way too much and I eventually said "forget it!" and I quit buying it. And now I quit growing it too because of the cost of electric.

There was a controversy not too long ago about cigarette manufacturers "adding nicotine to their cigarettes to make them more addictive." The fact was that the manufacturers were simply trying (and succeeding, it looks like) to make a consistent product.

I don't know if nicotine deteriorates under the same circumstances as weed, but weed loses its potency when it's stored at too high of a temperature. It could be the same thing with cigarettes. Convenience stores don't store their cigarettes in a climate controlled room; they'll even leave them roasting in the sun by placing them too close to the windows.

So I'm thinking that the nicotine can vary based on how the cigarettes were stored by either the wholesaler or the retailer. (Democrats ought to construct a department of cigarette efficiency!)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
* Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/200)