California - yr 2025 - This is a stolen meme but it's funny nonetheless

Thanks man!

2epr73.gif (click to show) Very funny

lol

They are gonna be sold on the black market before you know it!

yep - lol

https://www.walmart.com/ip/California-Straws-Food-Grade-Silicone-Reusable-Drinking-Straws-5-pack-Dishwasher-Clean-Safe-for-Kids/143610725

ProgressiveConservativeLiberal (first off, what the heck is that even supposed to mean? XD) Second of all, in the year 2025, the above meme will the the scene of people trying to get plastic straws, not those dumb rubber straws.

You really think that? The reusable silicone straws are just one item. I suspect the metal ones may be a problem, though. Still, the paper straws have worked well for 130 years.

What I find that's so hilarious is that so many people are freaking out about this non-issue. Most of the complaints I've seen here are from posters that don't even LIVE in California. The posts are just a smokescreen to hide any real issues that should be a concern.

Posts like scientists are linking the super-hurricanes we've had over the last few years, as well as the heat waves in Europe and Japan, with climate change. But climate change doesn't exist.

Memes could be a good way to show that we have a problem with violence in the US, including random violence and mass shootings. Totally ignored other than memes along the line of the government is going to come and take their guns.

The fact that straws will still be around for years to come shows that your meme is nothing but a strawman argument.

All right, you are right in one respect, but in the other, not. O.K., I already knew that the state of California was not banning straws, but I THOUGHT they were banning plastic bendy straws. Apparently, according to northbaybusinessjournal.com, the current Calfiornia legislature does not permit restaurants (notice something here, big government intruding into the lives of business owners) to automatically give people single-use plastic straws. The people must ask. Now, since the majority of Californians would eventually learn this law one way or another, eventually, the majority of people who go to restaurants, will get into the habit of requesting them. At first, people might be confused, and a line might build up, which would give the given star less business over time. I suppose, if Californians really are so obsessed with "saving the earth one straw at a time," and the crazy obsession with plastic straws of all things (seriously like you said, the California government should be focusing on passing laws that will do better things, like, for example, making it so it's illegal to purposely spread HIV AIDS, making it illegal to smoke marijuana (or at the least to slowly destroy ALL recreational marijuana, and thus, over time, to make it so that it's hard to get it), or something more productive. By the way, if California just issues re - usable paper straws to it's citizens (among other straws, such as rubber or even metal) will that not be bad for the trees. Don't the majority of Californians have a crazy obsession of creating a Green Utopia with no solution, and a perfect balance between man, animal, and nature? Well, they do, (at least the ones that aren't homeless) and the paper straws will be banned in time too. What will that leave left, the rubber straws, among other such straws, which are, this will mean that every single time that a restaurant passes out rubber (or silicone) straws, the person drinking from the said rubber/silicone straws will just have an extra straw in the collection that the person already has, because, c'mon, at the most, someone will need, maybe, 12 straws. That's for a big family. According to census.gov, the average size for a Californian family 7 years ago was 2.65 people per household. I will round up to 3. So, that means, the average Californian with a home today, will need to collect 3 straws. The Californian, after getting more straws than necessary, would start to throw them away... continued in next comment...

and then there would be a build up of those given straws in landfills. Let me check to see of those given straws are bad for the enviroment. O.K., so I went on recycle bank.com and discovered that silicone straws are better to go in landfills than regular plastic straws, but it is extremely rare to find a "rycycling" program to except it. But you can easily recycle plastic straws, so, my whole point to this whole argument, is why the heck does the Californian government need to go to so much trouble when there in a pit of economic crises (not the elite of course, but the working class), drug addiction, ricking HIV AIDS,the homelessness, the record number of car break ins, and other such things when there worrying about this. I wouldn't care so much if it weren't for this fact. According to "Gutfield" from Foxnews, this is just a way to ignore all of those other problems. And the way that they are ignoring basically will do nothing in the long run to better their problems. R.I.P. California. Everything must die in the end, and I guess California will be the first state to go. Please secede, please secede, pleeeeaaasssssseeeeee...

Since you brought it up, I suspect that California won't be in a rush to make marijuana illegal now that they've made it legal. Besides tax revenue, it will eventually push out the thug gangs profit center. Too many good things about it being legal. Much like when Prohibition was repealed. The criminal element pretty much disappeared, law enforcement could focus on other things, and quality and purity of the product returned. (some of the bootleg hooch was deadly) Portugal legalized all previously illegal drugs. The cost of making it legal saved them a lot of cash. I may do a meme on that sometime in the future. Right now, our national drug policies are along the same line as fascist regimes in order to control the populace.

Every problem has a solution. Our law makers are like a man with only a hammer: ever solution is like a nail that needs to be pounded. That solution may work on putting a roof on a house, but it's a terrible idea to use to fit more glasses in a box.

Well, I suppose you are right. That was pretty logical what you said, but I pose just one question. How many people will end up being rushed to the hospital because of legalizing marijuana? Also, if a lot of poeple are (because driving while high is allegedly worse than driving while drunk) then a lot of traffic would be backed up, which would thus in turn cause more people to miss their work. I also totally agree about what you said about our national drug policies going along the same lines ass fascist regimes. But you just make that sound really bad. The only two countries that have been Fascist suppressed peoples ideas that were against the person in charge. Nazis obviously suppressed the Jewish race because their whole religion basically runs against most of the Nazi idealogy. But there is just one difference. Those governments used those policies to keep the government in power. Our government(s) use these policies to benefit the people. There is a difference. And also, if the whole fricking state of California, the third largest, can ban something as small as plastic straws, then why not ban marijuana stores, which are so much larger? Also, one would think that it would take so much more money to ban tens of thousand of straws (Do you see fascist like policies there?!) then thousands of huge legal marijuana stores. I mean c'mon! If I had the choice of banning plastic straws, are banning marijuana stores, I would ban the stores because it would be more effective (not totally mind you) and would cost less money.

A January 2016 Rocky Mountain HIDTA update report points out that more drivers are being tested positive for marijuana. According to the report, 37 percent of all drivers in 2014 who tested positive for marijuana, not just those involved in traffic fatalities, also had alcohol in their system. An additional 15 percent of all marijuana-positive drivers had other drugs in their system. And a further 15 percent of drivers had both alcohol and other drugs in their system, along with marijuana. Only 33 percent of tested drivers had only marijuana in their system. Add into this mix that Marijuana will stay in your system, although not keep you high, for several days.

Who are these stoners that are out driving around? The only case I've seen cited was a teen that struck and killed a 16 year old girl. No other trace of other drugs was found in him, but, as a teen, he was too young to have purchased it legally. We already have seen teens that get drunk and get in wrecks. People who legally are not allowed access to these products.

As for government oppression, one needs only look at our own country. Jim Crow laws were put into place to oppress a minority. In the early 70s, a presidential commission was formed to study the effects of marijuana on people.
The found it less harmful than other drugs that were legal: alcohol and tobacco. This commission gave the green light for it to be legalized and taxed. The problem? Nixon was paranoid about the opposition groups against him: the blacks and the Vietnam war critics. Read that last one as "hippies". What did these two groups have in common? They were pot smokers. He used the racist propaganda that had been around for decades (they get high and rape our daughters) to get marijuana classified as a schedule 1 drug. Now he could control/oppress those he felt were the enemy at large. Drug raids became common over the next few years, with programs like Dragnet, leading the propaganda parade against drug abuse. After his resignation, the drug laws started relaxing some. Much of the 70s saw pot being decriminalized and talks of it becoming legalized in the following decade. Then Reagan stepped up the "War on Drugs". That's when things got sticky.

About the same time as the new WoD started, privatized prisons were becoming a thing. To make those profitable, they had to be kept full.That's why the 200 per 1000 incarceration rate in 1970 rose to 800 per 1000 by 2005. The minority oppression still exist

O.K., so the first paragraph that you typed up was very vague, and does not specify what "all" drivers means. Does this mean all of the drivers in the world, Canada (the country that I presume you are from based on your ridiculous and foolish user - name) or the U.S.A. Seriously, that is pretty vague. Second of all, according to an official car website called howstuffworks.com, someone who drives while stoned is two times more likely to get in a car accident, but driving while drunk is worse than driving while stoned. Also, according to the website, it is harder to detect someone who is stoned than someone who is drunk with the standard sobrerity tests. Also, only about 30% of drivers who actually have THC in their systems fail the tests. THC is one of the most common ingredients in Marijuana. Also, according to a website named denverpost.com, since the year 2013, more and more people that have gotten in auto - accidents have tested positive for marijuana. That can easily be applied to any other area. So evidently, what you just stated, was either when someone died, a twist of the truth, or a complete lie. Who knows, you could have accidentally seen some fake news. Also, when a teen walks around a couple of blocks of shops, and sees a couple of Marijuana shops, that will encourage the given teen to smoke more marijuana, which is proven by scientists to be bad for a developing brain. Lets just see which American party enforced Jim Crow laws. I went to Britanica.com and discovered that Jim Crow laws were created in the 1950s. Since we both already now that Jim Crow laws were used in pretty much every former Confederate state, including a couple of other states near the south, lets just check every single election from when it was created and when it ended. It was ended on July 2nd 1964. Well, I found out the election results from the years 1952 to 1964, and discovered that an average of 7.25 of the former 11 states (this according to Britannica.com again) voted democrat for each election. Wow, what a coincidence! That means that the majority of states (west Virginia was not a state when the C.S.A. formed) that were formally in the C.S.A. voted democrat. Guess else what, the "Progressive" "liberal" democrat President Wilson (a historical revisionist) instituted Jim Crow laws in the federal government (I will not sight sources from things I already know from now on. Oh guess else what? The dictator of Italy, the man who formed the - -continued innextcomment

Well, for a meme about straws, this has taken a wild turn.

On this, I used a news article for my basic information, but actually followed up by going through the report the article mentioned. https://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%202017%20Legalization%20of%20Marijuana%20in%20Colorado%20The%20Impact.pdf

Since THC stays in a persons blood far longer than other drugs, it is not surprising that it's found in the person's system even if they aren't high. That means you can smoke a joint of Friday after work, but on Monday, you could be tested positive. You're right that the tests aren't perfect. Likewise, the data collected misses a few items. One being are the people tested Colorado residents or are they out of state visitors?

Moving on to the Jim Crow laws. I did not know that they were only enacted in the 1950s. Imagine that. I guess the Supreme Court must feel silly having upheld those laws in 1896, with their "Separate but Equal" decision. Go back even further, even before the civil war, and you'll find that Jim Crow was alive and thriving, not just with the "normal" slave oppression, but with laws made to oppress the blacks of that time: not just slaves, but even freedmen. Take the anti-literacy laws that were put into place in the starting with Missouri in 1819, forbidding assembling and teaching slaves to read and write. It was amended in 1847 to include all blacks. By 1843, of the future confederate states, only Kentucky and Maryland allowed slaves (as well as free men of color) to be educated. The term "Jim Crow" wasn't coined until years later, based on a character in a minstrel show.

More Jim Crow laws were passed over the decades, but the most were enacted during the reconstruction period.

As for the southern Democrats, you'll notice those states today are Republican Red. To go further, at a time the The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not divided by party line, but by region. 100% of the southern states Republicans voted against the bill in both the house and the senate. A vast majority (but not 100%) of the southern Democrats voted against it. So how in the hell did it pass? I could say a bipartisan vote of the northern faction, but that would only be the tip. I'd like to think that it was both parties working together to do the right thing. Penn State used this in their online statistics course: https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/86/ that shows the breakdown of how the House and Senate voted by party and region.You'll notice >>>

1.) All right, P.C.L., this argument has taken quite a wild turn. 2.) Even though THC does stay in a person's blood for days, even when they are not even high does not affect the fact that someone that is high is two times more likely to get in a auto - accident. 3.) Good question about Colorado. 4.) What I was saying was that the segregation laws only started to be called "Jim Crow" laws in the early 1950s. Using your logic you could say that "Jim Crow" laws have been around for 10,000 years, because that is how long civilization has been around, and as long as civilization has been around, there have been slaves or serfs. Even countries today (Arabian and African) have slaves. 5.) You are correct about most of those other facts though. 6.) Yes, I do know that most of the states that were formally in the Confederacy mostly vote Republican today, but let's check why. There is one big difference though. So today, we vote for politicians based off of their economic/war/international views, not on their views on different races. Before the civil rights act, and other such acts put in by President Lyndon Johnson, it was not so. A lot of politicians were put in because of there views on race. From President Lincoln and C.S. President Jefferson Davis, to President Kennedy and Southern governors. All of this changed after the civil rights act because politicians could no longer put in racist laws, or do racist acts. So, why do most of the Southern states vote Republican today then, and it cannot be because of race because of the statements I just made. It is because of the South's view on government. Southern generals gathered their infantry, cavalry, and artillery men by using the phrases, "States Rights," "The right to overthrow a tyrannical government," and other such things. Many people in the south back then believed in a small federal government. The northern states identified more in a bigger, more powerful, federal government, and were proud to be in the U.S.A. Some confederates even celebrated State Pride more than "Confederate Pride." Over time, the two main parties switched their views on government. The 20th century brought new ideas, new weapons, new ideologies, new ways to brainwash, and new ways to commit mass murder. Everything was changing. The Democratic Party, beginning with President Wilson, started to promote and believe in bigger Federal government that should intrude on almost everything. Continued in next comment...->

THIS COMMENT IS CONTINUED FROM THE COMMENT THAT IS BELOW (IT BEGINS LIKE THIS - 1.) All right, P.C.L...) So, President Coolidge was one of, and I think the first Republican President to believe in small government. In fact, President Coolidge believed in such small government and little to no intrusion, that even in conversations he tried to say as little as possible! He probably had very simple speeches, and just tried to make everything small. By the way, he was the President responsible for the "Roaring '20s." The last President to believe in Big Government was President Hoover. Now, zooming towards today, we can see that almost all Republican politicians believe in small government, and almost all Democratic politicians believe in big government. Since most of the great - and great - great - grandchildren of the former Confederates still retain their views on small government, they thus vote Republican. Of course, a lot of southerners still probably are rascist... ->

THIS COMMENT IS CONTINUED FROM THE COMMENT THAT IS BELOW! Anyways, the southerns cannot get politicians in that can put in racist laws, so thus they focus more on economics. Also, historical revisionism (twisting, changing, fabricating, and sometimes straight up making up lies about the past to re - assure someone of there views) has made it so that so many Southerners (even black southerners) like the former Confederacy and going around waving Confederate battle flags. You have probably heard someone say "Oh but the Civil War wasn't fought because of slavery!" XD I hate it when someone says that, because they are so obviously wrong. Even one of my liberal teachers has said that.

>>> that it was the southern states that fought the bill. So why did so many northern politicians vote against it? I'd say that would be States that had a KKK influence in the early part of the 20th century. Because of it's passage, southern Democrats found it hard to get reelected because their party was seen as ineffectual in the south. The tide started shifting then, as southern states started turning red. This is why the GOP, which embraced the new blood of the old southern Democrats, is now seen a intolerant racists. (observation of opinion, not fact) How did these bigots take over the GOP? If hey hadn't, Hillary would probably have been the first woman president as a Republican. She never would have jumped party.

Nixon was paranoid. He chose to believe, as president, he was above the law (something Congress has embraced for themselves) but he also set the stage for America's downfall, by appointing Lewis F Powell Jr. to the Supreme Court. Two months prior to his nomination, he had written a memo that outlined the return of American industry to the robber baron state.One reason why we are an oligarchy today.

As for my name: progress can only be made by looking at both sides of an issue. Take the recent example of the tariffs placed on China. The president decided to "punish" China for sending cheap exports to the US by placing high tariffs. Without looking at all sides of the issue, he's created a new welfare state, asking to fund a $12 billion bailout for American farmers on top of the subsidies that they already receive. Where is this money going to come from? Surely they won't raise taxes.

Reagan in the 80s pushed for a program that cut taxes on the top tiers of earners. A good thing, and sparked his "trickle down" economics. He failed to look at all sides: what happens when that money flows up? It usually stays there. One reason why the number of billionaires increased more than 10 fold from 1987(41) to 2012(425). Adjusting for inflation, though, while there was only 1 actual billionaire in 1918, in today's money, there were 18 at the time. In giving the tax breaks to the high earners, he failed to realize that he stifled the economy. Bush Sr raised the taxes because the tax revenue fell too much. It wouldn't have, had those top earners reinvested their money here, but, with the cutting of wages and jobs, the tax base dropped. When the top tax rate was over 90%, what did those top earners do with their money? They invested in building and>>>

first fascist country commented President Wilson on his "Progressive" (this means progressing towards a utopian super state, or at least thats what it meant at the time) views. Guess else what? Every single Confederate state voted democrat in the election that took place right before the civil war. Guess else what? President Nixon, and the Nixon run government, was not scared of a black party that wanted equality. You probably think of the Black Panther Party as a great orgization intent on bringing upon the equality of blacks and whites (maybe other races idk) but really, it was scared of a communist oginazation intent on bringing on a communist revulution and destroying "American imperialism and capitalism." First off, I just want to say, that America was only "imperialist" during the manifest destiny movement, not in the 1960s of all decades! Anyways, Nixon was scared of that. President Nixon (whom I think was actually was a great president, besides from Watergate of course.)just didn't want America to have a Communist, (I should say socialist, because communism is impossible without a world wide revolution, which was probably impossible back in the '60s) authortian government take over our amazing country. On your last point, I totally and whole - heartedly agree with you that our prisons should not be privatized, but should be government run. Also, I cannot help but point out that your user name - ConservativeProgressiveLiberal makes absolutely no sense. First off, conservative is supposed to mean conserving ideas from a certain age. Modern day conservatives conserve ideas from the north during the civil war, and from the founding fathers. Progressive means progressing towards a near perfect, or even perfect utopia. Liberal is supposed to mean having classical liberal values, which are found in the constitution. But Liberalism has changed to mean Progressivism. So, your user - name, counters its own self. You don't even know what those words mean. C'mon!

[image deleted]