GrovePath wrote:
http://www.asylum.com/2010/01/20/nj-m ... es-drug-dealers-paranoid/

Jan 20th 2010 By Emerald Catron

NJ Medical Marijuana Makes Drug Dealers Paranoid

In New Jersey medical marijuana is going to be selling for $125 per ounce. An OUNCE! Drug dealers in NYC who were willing to talk to the Daily News sell an ounce for $500. What is this strange glaucoma-y feeling that's coming over us? And why is it coupled with a desire to move to Jersey City?

Drug dealers and conservatives are worried that people will be taking the train across the Hudson to by pot from people who are dying of cancer. You know, because when you're dying of cancer the first thing you want to do is sell your medicine.

Dealers are worried that they can't compete with such low prices (a weed "public option") and one speculated that lowering costs would cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars, which would be just awful -- how will he keep himself in oversize, diamond-encrusted watches and pit bull farms?

The New York Assembly passed medical marijuana legislation in 2007 and 2008, but it has yet to reach the Senate floor. Hurry up already -- we don't want to go to Hoboken!

whospeaksforyou wrote:
I assume that the Port Authority has made use of the PATH system conditional upon one's assent to the search of their bags. If so, the current search regime doesn't seem to violate any 4th amendment principles of which I'm aware.

Anyone have any info (even anecdotal) of anyone's person being searched?

ambar35 wrote:
The fact is Che is a political icon throughout the world. Che means struggle for your rights by any means necessary. A true internationalist he fought in Cuba, the Congo and Bolivia.

A generation later Cuban internationalists - with the spirit of Che - broke the back of apartheid South Africa as freedom fighters in Angola.

And today hundreds of Cuban doctors are working in Haiti with the same spirit and with no demands for insurance cards or co-payments.

As for the right-wing Cubans - just take a look at Union City and West New York politics over the last 30 years!

Br6dR wrote:
I agree that communism was a bad answer to the Batista regime but we'd be a lot closer to ending communism in Cuba if Cuban Americans would allow free trade with Cuba.

JerseyCityPower wrote:
Dirt...YOU are upset about things that NEVER HAPPENED.

I however, am relating to YOU the HISTORICAL FACT of the terrorist action of missles being fired at the U.N in NYC.

Why aren't YOU upset about THAT terrorist action?

JerseyCityPower wrote:
Dirt...:

Are YOU saying YOU support and defend the terrorist action of firing missles at the United Nations building?

JerseyCityPower wrote:
But HE DID NOT even try.

People say things all the time to sound TOUGH...for instance.. "Im gonna kill...so-and-so."

HOWEVER--

RIGHT-WING CUBANS here in the USA....DID fire missles AT the United Nations Building...and DID try to assassinate Che Guevara--which WOULD have murdered OTHERS along with him.

FACT!

YOU keep denying THAT!

(The missles fell short and fell in river...!)

JerseyCityPower wrote:
THE ABOVE POSTER WROTE:
"If Che had it his way, he would have *NUKED* New York City during the Cuban Missile Crisis."

Well, Che Guevara...didn't do that.

hero69 wrote:
People so easily scream cut this and cut that. I think what is truly needed is a more rational approach by the state to revenue raising. Why is NJ' sales tax, gas txa and cigarette tax so much lower than NY's.

I don't think it is as easy as people say to trim state and municipal workforce. I think we need more teachers, firemen and ploce officers

MYBEAT wrote:
Don't blame this lady, Blame the system that allows for this crap to go on!

We can all thank the attorneys in this country for driving us down to the ground.

Want to know whay everyone pays through the nose for insurance and day to day products???

Just take a look at all the lawsuits in the local, state and fed courts.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

jc_dweller wrote:
I understand that the impetus behind the push to remove street carts was actually restaurants feeling threatened. So much for fair competition. Shame on them. This needs to be resolved, asap.

How is it fair competition? Think objectively.

The weekday lunch crowd is obviously interested in fast, cheap eats. Brick-and-mortar fast-food restaurants like Cosi and Subway compete for many of the same customers as the trucks, but have relatively high overhead expenses. Because this ultimately has to be passed on to customers, they cannot offer products that are competitively priced against mobile vendors with much less overhead. They also cannot produce food of the same quality for the same price, even if they wanted to.

I grab a couple slices at the pizzeria across the street from my office about once a week. It wouldn't be fair competition if a food truck parked outside and sold cheesesteaks for $5 a pop. Many people on their way to the pizzeria, including myself, would probably be swayed. The cart would be taking advantage of a demand that was partly generated by the pizzeria, but at a much higher profit margin. What's fair about that? On the other hand, if a truck parked in front of Edward's there would be little if any competition (nevermind it's a bad location for a food truck).

Personally I would like to see places like Subway disappear, but for better or worse that's not relevant to the argument.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Gas taxes should go towards roads/bridges/tunnels. Increased costs for operating mass transit should come from user fees.

Except that when you raise fares more people drive instead of take mass transit, which leads to congested roads which means costly new highways. But that's okay because then the federal government will pay for most of the cost of the new highways, and the feds can just print more money when they need it.

Shadow wrote:
This is beyond one or two mis-delivered letters. It is widespread throughout the entire downtown area. The name for this is "theft of service". We pay almost 50 cents to have a letter delivered and it winds up in the wrong place. Consistently. This should be a matter for the hierarchy of the Postal and Federal Police. Multiply what we know in our neighborhoods times the city and state. There are thousands of dollars lost/stolen by the Postal Service on a daily basis. It is a crisis and must be exposed.

T-Bird wrote:
What if the deferral results in greater collections over time? What if the city doesn't need to utilize as many people in the tax department to pursue delinquent taxpayers? Most of the foregone revenue is penalty fees and interest that never were budgeted for to begin with. The taxes themselves wouldn't be foregone, just spread out over time. I also don't think it'll apply to just anyone - aren't there specific hardship requirements that must be met in order to qualify for a payment plan?

Given your stance on things government, I can't imagine you are in favor of the alternative - having the city foreclose on delinquent taxpayers and going through the not inconsequential financial, legal and administrative burden of having to conduct real estate auctions.

But yes - definitely agree that spending needs to be addressed.

Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
Reducing spending, and therefore, reducing property taxes would REALLY help out residents.

Delaying tax payments without reducing spending is really just a shell game.

heights wrote:
Quote:

I_heart_JC wrote:
Quote:

Blumpkin wrote:
What a dirty rat snitch of a mom. Her own kid, sheeeeesh...

please tell us you're joking.

Obviously you're not from this area...squealing is worse than stealing. You don't rat on your own.

Br6dR wrote:
I'd rat on a sex offender. I'd rat on any criminal on my block for that matter.

heights wrote:
Quote:

Eleanor_A wrote:
How ironic that the Buy Rite banner ad is at the top of the page! Over 1,500 beers!

What's so ironic about it their ad is on top of every refreshed page or each time you sign on to jclist. It just goes to show you that without jclist's ad campaign or customer support these local businesses would loose their foundation.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:
I agree I should not be able to do something if it violates another person's property rights (either their self or their actual property). This includes pollution. However, our legal system is not limited to these situations.

You don't have to agree with me on this -- but you also don't have the right to interfere with me if I am not harming someone else.

You lost me with the second part, but it sounds like from what you say in the first paragraph your real problem isn't the idea of a tax but maybe what the government does with the tax revenue? (I'm guessing - you've kind of jumped around.)

If we can agree that people who by their actions cause harm to another should compensate the aggrieved (and a tax should be an effective way to do that), maybe the focus should be on how to improve the system so that these payments are better utilized to achieve their intended purpose.

T-Bird wrote:
Who agrees with everything? I certainly don't, but that's life. Sure we live in a free society. That doesn't mean it's a society in which you and I are "free" to have things exactly the way we wants them, right? And I'm glad that there are "tyrannical" checks in place, as you put it. There are consequences to people's (sometimes selfish) actions that are borne by others (use of non-replenishable resources, pollution, health impacts) and costs associated with the remedies of those consequences. Why shouldn't the creator of the consequences bear at least some of the cost?

T-Bird wrote:
No one is talking about banning the consumption of carbon. Alcohol has an additional tax and consumption doesn't seem to be bothered by it. Same with gasoline. Why would a black market develop here? Especially when many of the items that would be taxed are not easily provided by non-traditional sources.

T-Bird wrote:
No one is talking about banning the consumption of carbon. Alcohol has an additional tax and consumption doesn't seem to be bothered by it. Same with gasoline. Why would a black market develop here? Especially when many of the items that would be taxed are not easily provided by non-traditional sources.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

DirtMcGirt wrote:

Third option, black market.

I'm just pointing out what should happen, not what is.