The Keystone XL fails; Legalize pot for jobs instead

Great Debates
1

The Keystone XL issue opens a window into today’s political reality.

Republicans agree we ought to cut the payroll tax. Democrats are promoting it. I’m not so sure it is such a great idea but having no input into the discussion, my opinion doesn’t really matter. Point is, even when the major parties agree, they still can’t get anything passed.

Somehow this pipeline scheme got injected into the discussion about the payroll tax. The pipeline is a loser, full stop. It is presented as a holy grail of an idea for conservatives, since it provides jobs, oil, and a sharp stick in Obama’s eye. The only people in the way are ‘environmentalists’, one of conservatives’ favorite whipping boys.

But take a closer look. The ‘environmentalists’ in this case tend to be conservatives. And not just any ordinary conservatives either- these are Nebraska farmers. They may think the soil they till is but 6000 years old, but they do, I think, comprehend their present surroundings. When these guys object to an oil project on the grounds that it will be too deleterious to the natural environment, you can pretty much bet your 401k that they are correct.

So are we to scourge these conservatives anyway, on the grounds that they are ‘environmentalists’? I say no way, Jose. The pipeline is clearly a colossal loser way before the word ‘go’ and must be rejected. How many jobs will be lost when the Niobrara aquifer is poisoned and the breadbasket of a nation is rendered barren? Lo, I do not think Jesus Himself would go there. BP would, but I digress.

Legalizing pot on the other hand accomplishes all kinds of conservative goals. Government would shrink in size. We could let pot criminals go, and we could work less cops chasing harmless pot smokers. Less lawyers would hassle less judges about a bunch of marijuana bullshit, and so taxes could go down, leaving more money in Joe Consumers’ pocket to buy ipads and lattes, shovels and guns and ammo.

Big Pharma hates marijuana, but too bad. Legalize it and regulate it the same as alcohol. Pharma will lose some jobs and some economic imbalances will shift only a little in favor of the little guy, but overall it is a win for just about everyone, from the guy on the street to the chick in the tax office to the guy running for re-election. Except Obama himself, who apparently is held prisoner by Big Pharma, hence the lack of Medicare negotiating for lower drug prices or a public option for that matter, but whatever.

Pot not pipes!

2

You’d probably be smoking Big Pharma weed, just like the joke is on you when all of those nonsense homeopathic remedies are also made by Big Pharma (one of the greatest ironies of our times).

As long as weed is the cure to all our economic problems, can we somehow build a 200MPG engine out of hemp!?

3

I don’t necessarily endorse ‘nonsense homeopathic remedies’. I endorse lighting a fire under your ass so you can achive what needs to be done and that’s about it. With legal pot, Big Pharma could face off against the local growers to sell the best weed. It’s still win-win, kind of like a Broncos-Packers Super Bowl.

We need better plug-in hybrid technology. Fuel will still run your car, but the broke college students will get used to milking the sun for gas since they’re always broke.

4

Ok, Try2B, I agree this is a bad proposal. Why? Because so many US Senators voted for it. But it would be nice to know more.

For instance, what is the basis for your claim that Nebraska farmers are against this for environmental reasons? Could it be instead that eminent domain will be used to take their land? Will this create a lot of regulations for farmland usage that they don’t like?

How about this idea that Big Pharma (whatever that is supposed to be) hates marijuana. Why? It isn’t going replace other medications. As a matter of fact, it will open up numerous oppportunities to sell variants of THC and other substances to people for diseases they don’t know they have. If nothing else, someone will make a fortune on a drug to help kick the marijuana habit, and many more people will become addicted to marijuana once they find out they are addicted and need a pill to end the addiction.

Now it would be a great idea to legalize marijuana. But not because of any economic benefit. It should be legalized because its illegality is an infringement of our rights.

5

At some point governments are going to figure out that legalizing marijuana actually makes it harder to get ahold of than keeping it illegal. If it’s regulated like tobacco and alcohol, one would have to go into a store (with many security cameras), produce photo ID showing proof of age and ask for a pack of spliffs with the possibility that your gossipy Aunt Bea is right behind you in line. This kind of system creates a paper trail as to who is smoking what and how much. There’s also the opportunity for the government to put up all kinds of educational signage as to carcinogens etc that are in marijuana… signage your local dealer probably never gets around to putting up. Also, if it’s regulated like smokes and booze, limitations on when and where you can purchase pot would add logistical difficulty to the process of securing a sack. Maybe someday they’ll figure it out. However, the main impediment IMHO is that potheads don’t gravitate towards government so there’s never going to be anyone advocating for this from the inside.

The pipeline just confuses me. It’s win win for everyone involved. Does anyone even live in Nebraska?

6

:confused::confused::confused:
If you eat food, you don’t want the Niobrara aquifer spoiled with oil. Which the XL will accomplish eventually.

7

As long as I don’t have to pay a tax to grow a marijuana plant in my yard, I’m all in favor of the store-bought stuff being taxed. But, in general, it should be legalized because the laws against it are stupid. The burden should be on the anti-legalization people to prove that keeping it illegal is a good idea.

8

From here:

It’s Ogallala and not Niobrara. I was wrong about that, so sue me. But the XL pipeline would be the oily ruin of it all in the end, guaranteed.

9

Sure buy oil from the oppressive governments in the ME instead. I wonder that companies like Chiquita, and more importantly, Avon who sells directly to women, want to use more environmentally sensitive oil, and are willing to not buy Canadian oil, but no one seems to want to boycott Saudi oil, who regularly execute women for being witches…Jeezus, and people think these companies are acting morally?

When a pipeline bursts on land the oil spill tends to be localized. The pipeline is monitored for such breaks and valves usually are shut quickly to limit the damage. Oddly enough, oil companies don’t make money when their product ends up back in the ground. If governments were doing their job they’d put in proper regulations, and ensure they are being followed to minimize the risk and steep penalties to hit the companies if the worst does happen.

But they’d rather spend their money chasing people growing marijuana rather than collecting taxes from the pipeline company.

As to the farmers, most won’t know the pipeline is there once it is in the ground. Their biggest risk isn’t from the pipeline breaking on its own, but by some yokel thinking that oil in the pipeline is causing two headed cows and attempting to blow it up.

10

Cite on the pipeline destroying the aquifer?

11

So if pipeline are the oily ruin of it all, why hasn’t it already been ruined? There are dozens of major oil pipelines that cross the High Planes Aquifer. Map of oil pipelines. Map of aquifers. Why is the Keystone XL so specifically dangerous in a way that say pipelines C18 and C19 that already run the length of Nebraska aren’t?

12

Can’t I be against the pipeline without having a position on marijuana? I dont’ see why we have to choose.

13

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

14

Yeah, that’s not gonna happen, any more than Big Tobacco or Big Liquor has to face off against backyard growers and moonshiners. The local guy’s still going to need his inspections and tax stamps and whatnot.

15

Have a toke or two, ride your bike to the store.

16

Try2bComprehensive, you can you to have a comprehensive answer to this? Or to why the pipeline shouldn’t be completed? I mean, if you want to have more expensive fuel and insult Canada while buying oil at high prices from corrupt Middle Eastern governments…

17

So what you insult Canada? I mean, its Canada, isn’t it? What are they gonna do, send Martin Short to attack us? OK, he’s too little, maybe send Sargeant Preston of the Yukon, he was a husky fucker…

18

Celine Dion is already pre-positioned for attack. It’d be kinda like the end of Mars Attacks.

19

Well you’ve stumbled upon the hidden sub-plot of my argument. Why can’t I be against the payroll tax cut without being forced to decide a major public works project within an arbitrary yet discrete time frame?

But whatever. It’s all already moot. I win.

20

Right. That is a better argument. However, I am more and more persuaded that many conservatives find reality unpersuasive. And so I shift my tactics, sometimes resorting to pandering. “Jesus wouldn’t do it” is not a valid political argument, but in some cases communicating is just too important to abandon the vernacular.

Also, the burden should be on the pipeline planners to prove (Q.E.D.) that their proposal is safe forever and ever amen.