I am trying to figure out who the violated party is, the users who are being taxed are happy with the policy so they don't seem violated by it. Big Pharma can't really make money off of it because it can't be patented. It eats into their bottom line big time when it is legal because it replaces so many of their patent medicines. I am trying to figure out what individuals are harmed by doing away with the oppressive and racist policy of drug prohibition.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think what he means is that taxation is the violation, regardless of whether the users are "happy" with it or not. Because if you don't pay the tax, there is always the possibility of people in uniforms carrying guns coming and dragging you away to put you in a cage.
But don't quote me on that, as I don't consider myself a Voluntaryist, or any other -ist, for that matter, and am not very knowledgable on the subject.
that sounds like something they might say, of course users don't actually pay the tax, it's a sales tax retailers have to pay and you could always grow your own tax free. And in states where it is legal it is often cheaper even with the tax because prohibition is a tax all of its own.
Seeds and strains of plants are already patented and the oppression in that arena is huge.
No they aren't, you cannot patent a cannabis strain in the US, not at this time anyhow as cannabis is federally illegal, the only thing you can do is try to trademark the names. Even if they could it's too late, the genetic material is already widely available. And even then they still couldn't make any money selling flowers, that is not what they do, they sell oil. Would you pay $1000 a month for patent cannabis? No, of course not so they will continue trying to make drugs that they can charge thousands of dollars a month for.
Monsanto already own the patents to agricultural seeds and sues the shit out of farmers with the government’s blessing.
The state can patent whatever the hell they want:
http://maryjanesdiary.com/patent-6630507-government-patent-cannabis/
You’re still missing the pot field for the bud though, as you have not refuted the main point of the argument I am making in the post about the results, ostensible or actual, of voting being violent.
yes, legal seeds. Yes they sue those who inadvertently steal their intellectual property. And that does not stop anyone from growing other varieties. You cannot patent a cannabis strain in the US at this time.
The government does not have a patent on cannabis, they have a patent on an application of cannabis.
I am still not sure what individual is the victim in cannabis legalization. By abstaining from voting you are tacitly approving whoever wins.
By not screaming women are tacitly approving being raped.
if they don't how else is anyone going to know?
So it's her fault for getting raped if for some reason (fear, etc) she doesn't? That's ludicrous, homey.