Florida Senate passes "Bong Bill"

[insertrusername]

http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2010/04/florida_bong_ban_passes.php

Despite organized opposition from smoke shop owners across the state, the Florida Senate passed a bill that will effectively shut down most headshops in the Sunshine State. Under the so-called "Bong Bill," the only shops allowed to sell water pipes will be stores where the sale of tobacco products constitutes 75 percent of the gross income or shops where the sale of smoking accessories accounts for less than 25 percent of the total take.

The bill passed with a unanimous 115-0 vote and now awaits the signature of Governor Crist. If he affirms the bill, the law will go into effect on July 1.

A few days ago, before the bill passed, I spoke with Jay Work, the owner of Grateful J's Deadhead Shop, with locations in Margate and Boca Raton. Work led the unsuccessful fight against the bill. He explained that this bill will put more than 1,000 Floridians out of work, and will promote cigarette and tobacco use.

"They're saying that if I sell a $4,000 piece of art at my store, that I have to sell $12,000 worth of cigarettes. I'm not sure who that helps," he told me. "They're saying basically you can sell this stuff -- we're just going to make it really hard."

The legislation is sponsored by State Rep. Darryl Rouson, a Democrat from St. Petersburg, and recovering crack addict. He has said on numerous occassions that he hopes this bill will lead to the banning of all pipes.

Now the owners of the 250-plus smoke shops in Florida wait for newly independent Charlie Crist. Their fate is in his hands.



...So I guess next week we start banning apples, aluminum foil, plastic bottles, etc etc...

 

[ancap]

It really is mind bending. What a shame.

 

[tinyTURTLE]

so florida has a crackhead in it's congress?
and he's allowed to make policy?
yeah, let's put the crackheads in charge, that'll work.

 

[kappainf]

Wow, that is really stupid. This just doesn't even seem possible, how can they do that. Did these people forget that there is still this thing called the internet, where you can buy pretty much anything.

 

[Malenki]

Yeah this really saddened me. Those dumb fucks should pass a bill that says McDonalds has to sell health food for 75% of their profits. This bill should really help out florida small business.

 

[ancap]

There will always be people with different values and opinions, but there is a certain class of people in society who are willing to trade their vote to a politician in exchange for the politician enforcing these people's values and opinions on others through the use of coercive force. "Smoking pot is wrong and damages society" - "Vote for me and I'll have the enforcers harrass and kidnap anyone who is caught smoking pot".

In this case however, I don't think the majority would have approved such a measure if it were put on a ballot. Politicians often enact such laws not because it wins them points with the public or that it offends their values neccessarily, but because it pays off special interests who helped get him elected in the first place.

 

[tinyTURTLE]

well, to be fair, bongs DO summon the devil. or the pizza guy.

 

[Boyz N Da Hood]

lmfao

 

[Mr.KushMan]

I think when a store gets to 75% toward tobacco, when they start stocking bongs and pipes will start to go back down.

HAHA.

Peace

 

[Malenki]

I think we should all start keeping bongs for cigs in our cars just to fuck with them. Yeah go ahead and test it, its just tobacco

 

[ancap]

You can just hear the politician's snarky justification of this law, "Well if these pipes are really being sold as tobacco pipes, then let's force these business owners to prove that their clientelle are mostly interested in tobacco products!". It is entirely consistent with the cultural belief that a minority of "representatives" (or a majority of citizens if you would prefer) should be allowed to inflict their will upon other people through the use of laws, even if (and especially if) these people fundamentally disagree with the proposition. We are ruled by a terribly flawed and dangerous system, and we are mostly in denial that there is a master-slave relationship and that there is a gun in the room.

 

[Purplekrunchie]

well, to be fair, bongs DO summon the devil. or the pizza guy.

I always wondered how Pizza Hut always seems to come a knockin about 30 minutes after the 3 footer comes out.

 

[Mr.KushMan]

You can just hear the politician's snarky justification of this law, "Well if these pipes are really being sold as tobacco pipes, then let's force these business owners to prove that their clientelle are mostly interested in tobacco products!". It is entirely consistent with the cultural belief that a minority of "representatives" (or a majority of citizens if you would prefer) should be allowed to inflict their will upon other people through the use of laws, even if (and especially if) these people fundamentally disagree with the proposition. We are ruled by a terribly flawed and dangerous system, and we are mostly in denial that there is a master-slave relationship and that there is a gun in the room.

Its a funny thing. And I agree with you, if you look at the nature of laws, they are the admittance that the social structure has failed. We are on uneven ground and we can solve this with ease. It all comes back to the idea of ownership, and the use of ownership is what? To make it possible to buy, its like when you were 12 and said I want to be the king of the world, leads to consolidation. This all comes together with the idea that everything on the earth will keep recycling and thusly why are you entitled to the means of production any less than the people who pulled it together.

It becomes apparent that higher intelligence equals more cooperation, when people merely had the land to use and hunt they were very cooperative, then as tasks became more specialized overall intelligence began to dwindle, with a few candles in the crowd. Now as technology reaches near its exponential predictions of progression overall intelligence starts to rise again as tasks become more streamlined. Very clear and mechanistic relationship is shared, but as religion has always done it tries to stifle the progression of knowledge, why? Because it inherently compromises their rigid belief systems, and when they don't live trying to change everyone into them its very high possibility they will end up in hell. Which comes back to the idea of farming-sheeple to make industry more interchangeable making the cheapest workers possible.

So you may ask, when will this system change? Well it occurs to me that social change happens in times of instability. Instability like massive job losses, when people don't have money to buy things, then companies can't make things because overhead and minimum workload is so high in most of these industries. So when technology gets strong enough it no longer seems reasonable, for profits, to keep people doing tasks when a cheap, uniform, fast, and intelligent robot can do it. This will cause a proletariat uprise, not in the form of labour but in the form of social connection. Where, no homo, love is seen as the fastener of community. Rather then coercion, as seems to be the american way. The question has never been, do we have the money, its always do we have the resources and people.

Think about this; a democratic society is a society where, through democracy, the society picks regulations of the community as a whole. Being in a capital system results in people being emotionally attached to money, it actually stimulates the same part of the brain that it triggered in the presence of food, sex, and drugs, and consequently leads to very simple means of control. Where as a social democracy would involve real discussion around the issues, and consequently the encouragement of all ideals.

Peace

 

[ancap]

Being in a capital system results in people being emotionally attached to money, it actually stimulates the same part of the brain that it triggered in the presence of food, sex, and drugs, and consequently leads to very simple means of control.

I don't think people are emotionally attached to money; I think people are emotionally attached to the stability that currency brings. It seems that the less money you have, the more emotionally charged you become over money (financial insecurity is a leading cause for divorce, more poor people get shot over money, etc). However, the alternative is no currency. If there is no efficient way to pay for necessary products and services, they either will not be made, or the quality would be terribly poor and obtained through a bartering system. The reason currency socially evolved out of a bartering system and into it's modern form was because it improved efficiency of trade and thus the quality of our lives through a much stronger economy. If you want to point out a simple means of gaining control, just look to the next election cycle for hints. Businesses are far more accountable to the public and susceptible to change than the government.

 

[Mr.KushMan]

No but if you don't see that we simply don't need economy, we are a community everything that exists does, and will and we still have the skill sets, knowledge and machinery to produce. I agree capitalism was good to create incentive for laborious work and spur trade by making money with reserve banking. However it has seen its time, it sways opinions simply by the emotional connection, look it up (mind over money). The fact is we can, and people would continue to contribute. It is the people who want to remain in archaic forms of trade and incentive that hold us back from true achievement. Look at the work of Jaque Fresco. He believes people can create a system where everything is available to all, and no one is denied anything. Just imagine if you were the only person on the earth, how would you grasp each day? What would be your tasks? How would you simplify your dealings?

Peace

 

[ancap]

It seems like you think free trade, capitalism, and the economy are things that were inflicted upon society rather than an evolutionary result of a relatively free society. I could be wrong. Let me know.

 

[Mr.KushMan]

You are right but they have seen there time. While they are good when a society is in discordance and not very technologically adept, they can create incentive. However, why do people get to say this is my wood and those are your pelts, so for this much wood I get that many pelts? Because land was consolidated under a ruler, like a king or emperor, then was sectioned off and either promised or sold to people willing to pay money to the King as tax or make other arrangements, like let their daughters become mistresses. If you remember history class the king has 'cronys' go around and force the people to pay all they had. If people couldn't feed their families and decided to steal food, they were put to death.

At this point in time, there is such a large gap between wealth and poor, it becomes like many emperors or corporate titans. Always finding more ways to get more money to the top, by cutting production costs, or increasing profits my manipulating the market. Food and drink companies like coke have been known to buy huge amounts of oil to drive up the cost of oil and subsequently the cost of food production, oil companies burn huge vats of oil because supply will lower profit margins, diamond companies incinerating diamonds, or their own product to make the market reflect increase when truly there is no gain or even a loss. In Wall Street it becomes apparent that most of the US GDP is merely fake values assigned to betting schemes, you saw what Goldman-Sachs was doing in terms of fraudulent activities. Money is too powerful as a corruption tool, when governments main job is too look out for the people. They consistently show lack of will, I mean the FDA has reduced 80% of its testing since 1970, from 50,000 per year to less than 10,000. The head of the beef packaging trust, is the head of the FDA. Dick Cheney was president of Halliburton. If you really research it unbiasedly you will see "its like a revolving door." From industry, to the agency they are supposed to be regulating.

Not saying my country is any better, its just as corruptible. And when these power hungry people are allowed to have free will over a country, madness ensues.

Its interesting to note, the president is no longer constitutionally bound meaning he is a dictator. He no longer needs to approach congress or the senate. Or any federal agency even if the agency is politically at the same level as the president. Your country is ruined, mainly from military industrial complex infiltrating the very essence of your patriotism. It becomes tyranny to question the powers that be, and the people brainwashed by the media have a fundamentalism about their dealings. They may believe what I am saying is anyone can be controlled by money and just brush it off. Much the opposite I want to borrow a quote from Hitler, who burned down his political offices-The Riechstag, "The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."

Their are near no defenses for the fact that the US nearly follows exacting steps as the nazi's. Big rallys of screaming, nationalist, fans. The double dealing on the part of coke, GM, monsanto, ect... during most wars. The airport xray scanners that strip people down in front of crowds, just like in the streets of nazi germany as german SS striped women down and even raped them. These are not coincidences, the same corporate giants that run your country, ran germany, and regardless of the winner they still win.

Peace

 

[ancap]

You are right but they have seen there time. While they are good when a society is in discordance and not very technologically adept, they can create incentive. However, why do people get to say this is my wood and those are your pelts, so for this much wood I get that many pelts? Because land was consolidated under a ruler, like a king or emperor, then was sectioned off and either promised or sold to people willing to pay money to the King as tax or make other arrangements, like let their daughters become mistresses. If you remember history class the king has 'cronys' go around and force the people to pay all they had. If people couldn't feed their families and decided to steal food, they were put to death.

It would seem to me then that what you have laid out here points more to a corrupt system of authoritative power, not the failings of free people making free/voluntary associations. Why then do you blend capitalism and free trade into your diagnosis?

At this point in time, there is such a large gap between wealth and poor, it becomes like many emperors or corporate titans. Always finding more ways to get more money to the top, by cutting production costs, or increasing profits my manipulating the market. Food and drink companies like coke have been known to buy huge amounts of oil to drive up the cost of oil and subsequently the cost of food production, oil companies burn huge vats of oil because supply will lower profit margins, diamond companies incinerating diamonds, or their own product to make the market reflect increase when truly there is no gain or even a loss. In Wall Street it becomes apparent that most of the US GDP is merely fake values assigned to betting schemes, you saw what Goldman-Sachs was doing in terms of fraudulent activities.

Is it possible that while some of the rise in wealth has to do with cronyism, much (if not a majority) has to do with businesses that have successfully met the needs of thier customers? If a majority of the rise in wealth is due to cronyism, can you point me to some evidence? Is it also possible that some of the disparity between the rich and the poor has to do with downward pressures on the lower class by the government itself?

I have never read anything about Coke purchasing large volumes of oil to artificially regulate markets. Could you point me to some articles? Concerning a company destroying it's own product... I suppose I don't have any problem with this so long as they meet all of the following conditions: A. Their product is not a human necessity. B. They do not have artificial control over their market (ie. they are a government supported monopoly or oligarchy, or there are legal barriers to entry into their market).

Money is too powerful as a corruption tool, when governments main job is too look out for the people. They consistently show lack of will, I mean the FDA has reduced 80% of its testing since 1970, from 50,000 per year to less than 10,000. The head of the beef packaging trust, is the head of the FDA. Dick Cheney was president of Halliburton. If you really research it unbiasedly you will see "its like a revolving door." From industry, to the agency they are supposed to be regulating.

I would dispute that in reality the governments job is to protect the people, though to be clear that is certainly the propaganda it indoctrinates. You will get no argument from me that the government is like a revolving door. I think evidence spells this out.

Please site some references on your claims about the FDA. I would be interested to hear more about that.

 

[Mr.KushMan]

Yes. Organization or establishment of any kind is much more concerned with keeping itself stable, rather than the original purpose, like religion being the quest for truth and denying the facts studying nature presents us.

What I propose isn't pervasive to corruption, what purpose does a producer have to find an efficient route to creation that doesn't pollute, or even an inefficient route. It comes back to money. When every form of production is available to all, all will be involved in creation, and innovation.

I don't want to google, just inform yourself. There is alot of well put together documentaries. Check out Food inc., Zeitgeist, and The Assent of Money, its really revealing as well as any at documentary heaven.com

Peace

EDIT: Read the definition of fascism, you may be surprised. Oh, and the broken window fallacy. And check out the two nazi coup's set up by american industrialists during FDR's administration, The Business Plot.

 

[ancap]

I don't want to google, just inform yourself.

No offense, but if you raise points of fact that someone else disputes, asking the other person to research your claims to prove their authenticity doesn't usually make for effective discourse. I also responded to your previous points and raised some additional questions. I'd be happy continuing the discussion if you addressed those first.