It’s Thursday, March 04, 2010 and we again vigorously denounce something.
Death to being wrong.
I hate being wrong. When I state an opinion about something of consequence, it’s only after careful thought, often times some research and informed discussion with people who have brains I trust. To go through all this and then be shown to be wrong bugs the hell outah me.
Especially when there’s no reasonable way to argue that it’s a matter of perspective or “Well, that’s just your opinion.” In forming my opinion about the legalization (de-criminalization if you will) of marijuana, I failed to consider a valid point; one that I cannot come up with a reasonable counter-point to.
Several weeks ago, I got this in my Reader Mail about the subject:
| LETTER OF THE WEEK |
|---|
|
Hi Elim, I agree with your logic that marijuana should be legalized. My concern is that being legal; kids would have a lot easier time obtaining it. They don’t seem to have much trouble getting alcohol or cigarettes and these are already illegal to provide to minors. I worry about kids having access to just one more thing that contributes to irresponsible behaviors. A kid’s brain just isn’t set up for kind of reasoning that is necessary if one is going to deliberately impair their own reasoning. There’s a ton of adults whose brains aren’t either, but the penalties for bad behavior as an adult are severe enough to at least be part of the thought process. Given the general failure of the law in keeping alcohol and cigarettes away from kids, I have serious doubts about making it legal on the whole. |
“Gadzooks” is absolutely right and I was wrong. For a while, I toyed with the notion of legalizing it, then making it really, really, really illegal to provide it to kids.
But then it dawned on me: Let’s say marijuana is legal and providing it to kids is super-mega illegal. I’m talking mandatory sentencing and real time in the slammer illegal.
So some kid gets busted with booze. Unless you have some serious leverage on the kid or parents who are active in the role, you’re not gonna find out who gave the kid the weed. Just ask any cop about busting a kid in possession of booze. Ask how likely it is that they’ll be able to find out who gave it to the kid? Most kids will go through a lot of hassle rather than rat-out whoever gave them the booze. Unless you catch them red-handed, you’ll probably never find out.
Make it marijuana instead. How much less likely will it be that the cops can find out who provided it? Think about it now. Kids already don’t have a huge problem getting weed. Legalizing it makes it a gazillion times more easy and I’m not digging that.
Unless you can find a way to convince me that kids having marijuana is a good thing, or at the least, a harmless thing, then I’m now opposed to the legalization of marijuana.
See, I can admit when I’m wrong.
This just in from our “That’s What I’ve Been Trying To Tell You All Along Desk” — Muslim scholar Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri has issued a “fatwa” (a religious ruling) declaring that terrorism was “haraam,” or forbidden by the Quran.
Not like this one. Previously, condemnations of terrorism by Muslim scholars have some wiggle room, enough to where someone could (even if having to do a bunch of scriptural gymnastics) justify terror. In this case, ul-Qadri has left none. His 600-page ruling leaves nothing subject to interpretation. ul-Qadri says; “I didn’t leave a single, minor aspect that, in the mind of radicals or extremists, can take them to the direction of martyrdom.”
He goes on to call his fatwa an “absolute” condemnation, going as far as to label the terrorists themselves “kafirs,” a term in the Quran meaning “unbeliever.”
What remains to be seen now is if those who continue to advocate terror will be rounded up and killed like all heretics.
In other news, it looks like Congress is gonna pass a pretty dumb “jobs stimulus” bill. In this bill, employers who hire someone will be able to skip paying the federal payroll tax (6.1% of the employees salary) for one year. They’ll then get an added $1,000 if the employee stays with them a year.
Why is this hard to understand? Look, business owners do not decide to hire new employees based on the tax breaks they’ll get for it. They hire new employees because their business is expanding from HAVING MORE CUSTOMERS!!!!
Sure, a tax incentive might push a business owner who’s on the fence, but will this thing result in anything more than a handful of jobs that probably would have happened anyway? I mean what’s the point here? I don’t understand why this has to be so ****ing complicated.
I’m not going over that again. Businesses need more customers buying more stuff. If we’re gonna take care of this unemployment thing, we gottah let people keep more of the money they earn. Yes, I mean cut taxes. Cut them to the bone.
Yes, and cut government spending. Cut it to the bone. Yes! That means NO unnecessary spending. Don’t you get it? More people working = more taxable incomes! You want more water, make the pond bigger! Get everyone working and just a moderate tax burden will be more than enough. I’m talking about cutting taxes on EVERYTHING there is a tax on. Tax breaks for the rich? Yes! Dammit, the wealthy have more to spend. These are the people we MOST need spending. Get them long dollars out and moving through the economy! How is so hard to comprehend?
Not a lot of blog today. So here’s a snapshot of a wombat eating Nancy Pelosi’s head.
