So, he loses Rice Krispies--BFD.
Them Funion people are waiting, pen-in-hand.
When one door closes...
I have a cherry one (with pink icing!) in the car. They're for Ma~, I SWEAR!
Oh, I lurves the cherry, too....
Our deal is that I get to eat the "crust" on the outside (because it has no pink on it, and is, therefore, undesirable) and Ma~ gets the rest. It is a fine compromise.
Oh, I'm with Matilda on this one...the pink, plus those hard crunchy sprinkles are the point....the only good thing about the crust is that soon you will be at the icing! Squee!
I've eaten one unfrosted pop tart and will never again! Blech. Then it's just bad pastry filled with teeth-achingly sweet filling. Icing and sprinkles, though....
Now, I'm really jonesing...
Ew. I'm nauseous. You can have my share and then some.
I'm not a stoner, but I have good friends who are. :)
That said, I was hoping/wishing that the Phelps incident would bring a new analysis on the marijuana legalization issue. Phelps is too celebrated an athlete to claim that pot smoking ruined his otherwise illustrious career. If it's okay for a 7 gold medal winning Olympiad to get stoned and still compete, why is it so awful for everyone again? Oh yeah -- because it's completely safe, but it's a "gateway drug". Give me a break!
I'm disappointed at the Kellogg's decision, but not for Phelps' benefit. Moreso for the country's.
Adding to my previous thought, this would be a ripe opportunity for the ailing economy. If we were to legalize marijuana, then we could assuredly raise more state tax revenues as the legal drug sales would be subject to sales tax. We could employ a LOT of people for the growing/harvesting, distributing, packaging and marketing. We would put a real damper on prison overcrowding and cut down on those overhead costs. We might possibly even reduce street crime related to drug trafficking, but perhaps that's not entirely true... who knows? Of course, we would also "reduce our dependency on foreign products."
Of course, legalizing marijuana would also "distract" some of the country's unemployed with a new, mellow kinda vice.
The more I think about this, the better it sounds!
Reasons why marijuana legalization will never occur:
• Gallup surveys over the last eighty years has shown that it isn't popular, by margins reaching from 60 to 80 percent. (The closest it got to getting close to 50-50 was in 1979). The noise you hear about legalization comes from a very small, well-funded minority organization which still has made virtually no progress on the issue of legalization, with the exception of the "Trojan Horse" of medical marijuana. Politicians on both sides of the aisle haven't helped this by fighting any reasonable efforts at the study of THC for medicinal uses. And most of the GOP finds it advantageous to paint opponents as "soft on drugs."
• Insurance companies would never go for it. We've already legalized the most dangerous drug in America, alcohol, which is culturally accepted. We fought that battle with Prohibition, and it was a raging failure. Prohibition was a raging health care success ... but a giant political failure. The insurance industry would never stand for adding another psychoactive drug to the mix: you'd see more workplace accidents, more accidents in the air and at sea and more underage use of the drug.
• On that note: what keeps most people from smoking pot is societal disapproval. Meaning that it's against the law. When you remove that, drug use will skyrocket.
• Lastly, imagine what happens if pot is legalized and Madison Avenue, whose entire job is to create new markets for products, were to get hold of pot.
Good luck with your quest, but I don't think it's gonna happen.
No no no -- not a personal quest, just a general dream. I personally don't care, but legalizing marijuana makes a lot more sense than you seem to written.
I completely agree with some what you said, and can add some areas you didn't mention as detractors for the idea. But the "unpopularity" isn't really what any laws are about. Our "representative" Congress under the Bush years decided to overturn the Junk-Fax laws. Tell me, after the overwhelming popularity of the Do-Not-Call Registry that receiving junk-faxes was wanted and necessary to reverse the law over.
In addition to the comparison to alcohol, cigarettes are cancer-causing and addictive, and they are legal -- marijuana is neither of those. Being high may be addictive, but that's not the same thing as an addictive substance. [See alcohol/alcoholism which doesn't affect everyone, but affects some] As for skyrocketing use? What's your point? You mean like alcohol, cigarettes, ibuprofen and zoloft?
California has already pretty much openly adopted legal marijuana use. Anyone (and I mean anyone) can get a "prescription" and buy their drugs all the way from "Green Cross" locations to vending machines. And the state has told the DEA that they will no longer allow the Feds to tie up the Californian court system with marijuana related drug cases (except in extreme situations, like a residential block of all "secret grow-houses"). California IS getting sales tax revenues to help their budget shortfall. Wouldn't the country's state and local economies be able to help offset the decreasing property tax revenues with sales tax revenues?
And what makes pot more and more disapproved of is truly nothing more than snowballing societal disapproval. "Its true because it's always been like this." That's never been a true scientific cause/effect relationship. For instance, society disapproves of non-Christian religions in this country, too. Does that mean that we should enact laws to persecute Hindus and Wiccans because a majority bunch of Christians think if they don't accept Jesus they are going to hell?
What you said was that a few unrelated statistics come to any argument or conclusion. Each one has its own measure of merit, but they are all just soundbites and stumbling blocks. I believe that if people stopped being so belligerently and arrogantly smug about what Nancy Reagan spoke so firmly about, the legalization folk might have an opportunity to actually do some good. Remember, Ronald and Nancy were tools promoted by the intolerance of the "Moral Majority", the hate-cults who claim to act in the name of Christianity, and the far too easily agitated authoritarians who didn't like the free-thinking and acting against the grain that was going on by the youth of the 60's and 70's, including protesting the Vietnam War.
One place to take a look at for the results of nearly-legal use of pot is the Netherlands. We were there a number of years ago and a friend of ours, a gorgeous female musician in her forties, had NEVER SMOKED POT. Ever.
I think the risks of kids smoking pot because it might suddenly be available is silly. They can already get anything they want on the streets so why not make it legal and safer in terms of actual ingredients so that if they do decide to turn into pot heads they can do it with a minimum of danger? I'd rather no one smoked, drank or ate anything fake before the age of 25 but I doubt that'll ever happen regardless of laws. dadgaderie often talks fondly of the mother of one of his high school friends who would let the kids drink beer in her house- and refuse to let them drive home afterwards. If you went over to party, she took your keys and that was the end of the story. How many kids did she keep from dying stupid deaths? I would imagine proportionately far more than any age-related laws can ever hope to achieve.
All attempts to legislate intelligence, education and common sense have failed in the past. I see no reason why these attempts should work now. I say let folks drug themselves up to the teeth if they want to- the pharmaceutical industry would love to have a piece of the pie- and just keep folks off the road, out of heavy equipment and eating pop-tarts (ew) if they want to. I'd rather a nation of fat, peaceful druggies than the gun-toting alcohol-fueled fake sugar crazed folks we have now.
Yikes... didn't know I had a soapbox that big. Sorry 'bout that...
Plus, they can't keep track of the illegal fields in Kansas and Oklahoma (amongst other places it grows wild I'm certain - I am just familiar with those two states). Can you imagine trying to regulate its legal growing and usage?
Having said that - I good friend of mine once mentioned it was the ONLY cash crop that was suited to grow in Oklahoma.