Comments (28) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   dtroutma said, 5 months ago

   Amazing how the folks, especially conservatives, are all for “sin taxes”, and don’t consider ripping off 80% of Americans to provide for the 1% to increase their profits, isn’t a “sin”.
2. 

   ConserveGov said, 5 months ago

   Dems would tax air if they could…… Uh oh.
3. 

   capndunzzl said, 5 months ago

   …the elephants are so desperate that they’ll take anybody.
4. 

   MortyForTyrant said, 5 months ago

   Well, that was one of the goals of the initiative, at least from the serious supporters: regulate it and tax it, just like tobacco and alcohol. Nothing wrong with that, except when you’re a bagger or a stoner. Hmmm, I wonder what the venn diagram of those two groups would look like :-)
5. 

   Radish said, 5 months ago

   One of the Microsoft millionaires wants to make a high end brand of marijuana.
   .
   His high end pot-products would be branded and marketed much like fine liquors or cigars. Rather than plastic bags and jars, his top quality bud would be encased in stylish, decorative translucent containers. It would all be marketed under the “Diego Pellicer” brand, named for his great grandfather, a hemp grower and seller back in the 1800’s.

   He’s been called by some the “Bill Gates of bud.”
6. 

   Redkaycei Repoc said, 5 months ago

   @Radish

   Lucky Strikes had pot included at one time before it was illegal. In the late 60’s the major cigarette companies trade marked some of the well used names like ‘Acapulco Gold’ and ‘Panama Red’ because they were sure back then it would be legal before 1975…. ah well…..
7. 

   Robert Landers said, 5 months ago

   @Redkaycei Repoc This is an honest question (as I only smoked pot once in my life, a long time ago, and I do not smoke). Is pot smoking any better for your lungs than smoking tobacco, or anything else for that matter?This is pertinent, as one of the highest costs of medical care is in smoke related breathing problems, and therefore we ALL pay for this one way or the other.
8. 

   Kylie2112 said, 5 months ago

   @Robert Landers

   There are no long-term effects from normal recreational marijuana use, other than some people experience a bit of short-term memory loss. Also, you don’t chain smoke joints the way people chain smoke cigarettes. There won’t be any noticeable effects on medical care from legalizing pot.
9. 

   Ms. Ima said, 5 months ago

   @Robert Landers

   Bake it into brownies. Same effect and no lung damage. Could you explain how 47% of people not paying into the system are inconvenienced by having to pay more nothing?
10. 

    zoidknight said, 5 months ago

    @dtroutma

    And it is amazing how ignorant the 80% are that think that ripping off the 1% are. How long before your beloved democrats and liberal raise taxes on everyone.
11. 

    zoidknight said, 5 months ago

    @capndunzzl

    You just described most democrats.
12. 

    Chillbilly said, 5 months ago

    @ScottPM

    Pot won’t give you motivation that you never had in the first place.
    .
    I know professors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, executives, etc. who smoke weed for fun and have successful lives and families.
13. 

    Noveltman said, 5 months ago

    @

    You rely on this delusion that RATIONAL people couldn’t possibly disagree with you. You forget that an awful lot of us care about things like the environment, like respect for others, like ensuring the survival of all humans, not just fetuses. Feti? Fetusses? Never mind.

    I somehow doubt this SELFISH and SELF-CENTERED view of the world that you have, and call “rational”, is shared by many decent people.
14. 

    Omnius said, 5 months ago

    This cartoon was stupid. Liberal pot smokers would not crybaby about paying a federal tax on the pot we smoke because then we’d get to do it legally. Time to exterminate the DEA and stop the losing war on drugs, a total waste of taxpayer money.
15. 

    Michyle Glen said, 5 months ago

    @dtroutma

    Its the GOP’s mantra:
    Do as I say,, Not as I DO!
16. Load the rest of the comments (13).