News – Oh, that wiley Georgia Legislature. You know it's a good story when the first question anybody asks when they hear about it is "was this an April fool?"
I'm sorry, but do you actually think it is acceptable to sell "Cronic Candy" to children? Does anyone actually think it is ok to market a product to minors that makes drug use look glamorous? This was one of the nly good things Doug Stoner has ever done.
Hell yeah we made it illegal. The rest of you guys are stupid for not doing the same!
Is it also illegal to sell non-alcoholic beer or wine to minors in Georgia?
Yes.
What about candy cigarettes or bubblegum cigars? (Or don't they make them anymore?)
Not a fan of those either. The difference between them and pot flavored candy is that cigarettes and cigars are legal, unlike marijuana which is an illegal substance.
There are some things that bother me about passing laws, not to protect people or property, but to prevent behaviour that might in someone's imagination lead potential crimes. The pot flavored candy is a good example. Is there a positive correlation between sucking on pot flavored lollipops and smoking pot? We don't know. Might there even be a negative correlation? We don't know that either.
It seems to me there is a growing tendency to pass laws to prevent anything that might possibly result in a crime. For instance there have been calls to eliminate sex and violence in television and movies on that idea that viewing those activities can lead to crime. Following that reasoning perhaps all depictions of crime in movies and television should be banned. Should all suspicious activity be banned too? Have we already replaced probable cause with mere suspicion as reason enough for violating a person's privacy?
So who really endorsed this bit o'candy? Cheech and Chong?
The same local black rappers who like to talk about the government conspiracy to keep the black man addicted to drugs and living in the ghetto for one.
I don't like the concept of this candy or the marketing strategy any more than you do tang, but doesn't it bother you that the government assumes the power to regulate candy simply because of the underlying message it's sending? I always tremble when the government takes on more power. What disturbs me even more is when the government takes on power for the sake of "protecting children." That's a never ending road of endless legislation and control. If a legislator introduces a bill and can spin it as "protecting or taking are of children," then it's political suicide to vote against it. Put a kid's face on your product, and you can sell anything. Just ask all the boneheads who freaked out when Bush vetoed health insurance coverage "for children" that actually would have covered mostly already insured children and wasted millions of dollars. BUT IT WAS FOR THE CHILDREN OH NO HORRIBLE!!! Anyway, I'm done ranting.
This is what happens as a result of prohibition, black markets take control and all kind of weird people and weird products try to make a buck from the thing being outlawed.
Legalize it, control it, tax it, teach your kids about. The forbidden fruit is always the tastiest.
Clinton, Bush and now Obama have all either admitted to or been caught using.
That's one of my biggest gripes with Obama (have plenty of others for Bush and Clinton)
He admits to using coke and weed but still wants to jail the people he bought from and used with.
He'd get my vote if he were to say exactly what you just said walden!!!
And that's why I don't think a black guy with a freaky first name, the middle-name Hussein, with pictures of him wearing African garb floating around, who grew up out of the country and admits to smoking and snorting can get elected. I hope I'm wrong, because he would be much better than McCain and a world better than the poo throwing baboon in office now. (no offense against poo throwing baboons.)
And thats why Hillary Clinton won't leave the contest, she might be the only Democrat intelligent enough to have figured out that Obama can't win the general election.
That's enough baggage as it...now lets add that he hardly ever votes and has voted "present" more than any member of the Senate AND that when he does vote its accounts for the most liberal voting record.
AND he wants to leave Iraq but leave behind a strike force in the middle to deal with terrorist and protect our embassies? What does that mean exactly? If you leave behind on an embassy guarded by the military with a "strike force" then you aren't bringing the troops home.
Obama is a lightweight, a neophyte, that still has no clue what he is doing. Yes, Obama graduated from Harvard Law and that makes him a good LAWYER. It doesn't mean that he understands diplomacy, war, economics, trade, etc etc etc etc.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
Raiderwall
berkeley
alamala
dexlovex2
dadesider
Monte G
Clavius
baoma
ecotourusa
thinkingserious
inghamb87
Zuffa
ConquistadorForLife
akira9349
walkingpeas
bha2007
mrrob
popeller
jkhaff
Wolfie2007
getreal1
djolemcloud
snowhite12
tcnt
hashima394
bugluver
newbie0420
walden3
Charlson
I-LoveYou
opi.cz.ka
Eavesy
mudkipz
LudoTony
chayanat
free77
rappin4tay
pagey
lawrencee
cactushair
rj3sp
BronxBomber
Mdiar
ipek
newsarefree
ind06
deezin2
bizexpert
david_nwpa
grungeplunge
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
29)
Vote
I am just really curious what that candy tastes like. I mean, I could understand if it has a brownie after taste, but who makes this stuff? How can anyone consider candy a drug leading to harder drugs? Like what, saccharine?
Careful David... candy leads to saccharine. Saccharine leads to the real hard stuff, poly-saccharides! Those are dooming this nation in a wave of crime and evil, as poly-saccharides addicted madmen walk the streets of this nation, preying on carb rich foods!!!
"How can anyone consider candy a drug leading to harder drugs?"
It's no different than banning candy cigarettes, as has been done in many nations and at least one U.S. state. Also no different than banning Camel cigarettes from using "Camel Joe" to advertise its products.
I don't have a problem with it. It only stops the sale of pot-flavored candy to kids, and it was done at the local level.
FYI: I tried some suckers a couple years back, and I think it was "Chronic Candy," but I'm not certain. Had kind of a low-level cinnamon taste. I don't know if it actually was made from marijuana, though.