Posted on 04/24/2006 12:33:31 PM PDT by davesdude
Executive Summary
Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate.
One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale.
This report examines the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana – taxing and regulating it like other goods – in all fifty states and at the federal level.
The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.
The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
Maybe so
There doesn't seem to be much incentive to do that on this thread. I've tried, and all I've gotten is a storm of "hurr hurr u r stoopid" and "omg jackboot licker!" and "you aren't worth arguing with, so I'm going to keep responding to you with no purpose in mind but annoying you."
It's dead, Jim.
I said: "On the survey people were asked how much pot they smoke and the average for those who admitted smoking in the last 30 days was about 7 grams."
I should have said: "On the survey people were asked how much pot they smoke and the average for those who admitted smoking in the last 30 days was about 7 grams _per month_."
Just what part of "prohibited" do you not understand? I'm comparing apples to apples - actual prohibition laws. You are one comparing actual laws with prohibiting the laws of physics, which by the way is too stupid to deserve further comment.
I did address the costs, but apparently you missed it. ALL laws could be done away with to "save money". I could do what this "study" did and add up all budgets of all law enforcement and the entire judicial system and say "we can save money by decriminalizing all crime...see $ + $ = $ saved". Of course, I would be leaving out all of the associated extra costs that would result, just as this "study" made no attempt to approximate the cost of legalization. The "cost" to society, whether you can put a dollar amount on that or not, would be enormous, just as "legalizing" rape, robbery, or murder would be.
Again, if it's impossible to control human behavior, then we should completely abandon the idea of protecting our borders, right?
What are the prices in Europe for the already grown stuff in the special shops, not on the street?
No. I'm thinking of the class action against "Crack-Is-Us" or some similar company, which sells a product, which is addictive and a brain killer. You had better figure out how to protect ladder manufacturers before you even dream of trying to bring pot, crack, etc. onto the market legally.
Would we live in a better world if it was illegal to do anything that wasn't unequvically good for us?
Okay, don't talk on the phone and type at the same time. -"Unequivocally".
I was specifically answering the assertion that drugs "can't be prohibited because they are natural." I found that to be flawed logic, and thus not the real issue. I was trying to get to the real issue: Does the government have the authority to regulate drugs (state, local, and/or federal), and if so, should they?
I was clarifying what I thought to be a spurious argument.
I don't think its wild supposition to say that legal drug users would face extremely high insurance rates. They certainly would if I were the insurer. Tobacco users do.
Indeed, if legalization were to occur, I'd be the first on the bandwagon to take those supreme rights to do what I saw fit and force all of my employees and government fund recipients to take a drug test. Failure would mean no job, and no benefits. If I were an insurance company I would demand drug testing of all covered people and refuse to cover drug users. Same applies to loan applicants.
I'm talking about suing the manufacturer of the product for damages. If you don't first fix tort law, then legalization is a nonstarter. I can get 7 people on any jury any where to side with a grieving mother against a crack company. You'd have much better luck getting lawn darts back on the market packaged for four-year-olds.
How can prohibition be working when "you see more anti-marijuana commercials because it's used more than any other drugs"?
That would be a clearly stated right in the Constitution. I've word searched drugs, bestiality, and polygamy, and have not found them or their synonyms in the Constitution. So a there is no "right to toke."
Whether is should or shouldn't be illegal is a different argument.
Well, now we're talking degrees of prohibition, but there's far cry from "unequvically good" and "unequvically bad".
Even those strongly in favor of the right to bear arms don't want Arabs walking around New York City legally with a nuke. Extreme example? Sure, but it makes the point that NO right is absolute. We just haggle over where the line should be drawn.
Your use of that definition is just a semantic game.
Generally good laws save money in net (laws against murder, rape, theft cost much less to enforce then the cost of letting the actions happen). Bad laws cost more to enforce then they save in other costs (yes I'm the kind of SOB that CAN put a cost on a single human life, for some humans it's a negative number. Hence I'm for laws that allow morons to die without bothering the rest of us.)
Bad laws poorly enforced are the worst of the lot. They cost money to 'enforce' and don't generate lower costs for the social ills they are claiming to fix. Alcohol prohibition was clearly such an case. Pot prohibition is also such a case.
You can approximate the cost of legalizing a substance that is already readily available. Near zero. Those that want it already get it (streat price is the only somewhat reliable indicator of substance supply). You don't like that answer so you spin and try to change to subject to immigration and other 'prohibitions' that you prefer to argue about.
That would be your right as an employer. There are any number of drugs freely available OTC now that will potentially have a negative affect on an employee's performance, individually or in combination. Do you test for those now, and if not, why?
Anything not mentioned specifically is beyond the scope of federal control (and state control based on the 14th IIRC).
Stretching the commerce clause is the counter arguement you and FDR have traditionally used to counter the plain text of the constitution. Save it.
Do the words of the Ninth Amendment mean anything to you?
9th Amend...The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.