The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition

Harvard University ^ | June 2005 | Jeffrey A. Miron

[philman_36]

Shoot them as they try and bring the cr@p over the border and a lot will get better.
And for the domestic growers? Gonna bill their family for the bullet?

[A CA Guy]

For the criminals illegally growing locally, take away their freedom for a while and assets.

If they do it again, take away more of their freedom and assets.

People making drugs to get to the public are called drug dealers.

[SampleMan]

You can't sue a tomato manufacturer if you grow and consume your own tomatoes.

Well, I wouldn't put it past a lawyer. But selling the seed would be the same as selling a joint as far as civil liability goes, or at least close enough to ensure any seed company would soon face a massive lawsuit.

My point isn't against "growing your own", that is perhaps the strongest argument. My point is that legalization, as we think of it with other products, simply wouldn't be possible in the current tort atmosphere. MJ might make a go of it with hefty insurance costs tagged on, but other more harmful drug manufacturers would simply be unable to make it work. The pharmaceuticals have a hard enough time with drugs that have medically redeeming purposes.

[philman_36]

My point is that legalization, as we think of it with other products, simply wouldn't be possible in the current tort atmosphere.
That is an opinion, not a point.

[SampleMan]

That was a quick backpedal.

From our previous conversations, I have very little patience for your inability to read my posts correctly. I backpedaled away from nothing.

[philman_36]

People making drugs to get to the public are called drug dealers.
And if it were legal they'd be called businessmen.

[SampleMan]

Have I given any indication that I am headed down that path?

I've heard it many times from those advocating legalization. Whether you were headed down the path or not, I recognize that many take it. Is there a problem with my trying to clarify your position by putting conditions on my statements?

[A CA Guy]

But they are not legal manufacturers under the FDA, they are criminals.

That is the way it is.

These are the kind of people that the Duke kids got in trouble with. Low life gutter culture people they should never gotten involved with.

Better to never go there.

[philman_36]

Have I given any indication that I am headed down that path?
I've heard it many times from those advocating legalization.
You're avoiding the question! Have I given any indication that I am headed down that path?
Don't pigeonhole me.

[GLDNGUN]

Uhhh, which right or rights are you claiming aren't absolute? ALL rights? Even the right to life? Don't you have to do something wrong before you can have your life taken from you?

Thank you for making my point. Your most basic and cherished right - the right to LIVE is NOT ABSOLUTE. Point a gun at a cop and see how long he respects your "right to life". Your right to life is not absolute. Pull that trigger and shoot the cop and the state may, and rightfully so, do away with your "right to life".

[philman_36]

But they are not legal manufacturers under the FDA, they are criminals.
That is the way it is.
For now. What will you do then "in the when"? Kick harder against the stall?

[SampleMan]

Quit changing the goalposts...

You can't refer to someone else's post "healthcare costs" and then mine "insurance costs" and say that I'm changing the goal posts. I can only vouch for MY posts. ...you would probably go out of business. Do you not realize the number of legal drug users you would be depriving your company? Or did you mean "illegal" drug users?

Actually, I meant "harmful drug users". I wouldn't really care whether they were legal or not. Companies now charge much higher rates based on tobacco and alcohol, as well as banning certain occupations from coverage. I have no doubt what-so-ever that cocaine or heroine use would make someone uninsurable with most companies based on simple statistics. A higher percentage of crack heads suffer serious medical consequences than sky divers.

[philman_36]

Your most basic and cherished right - the right to LIVE is NOT ABSOLUTE. Point a gun at a cop and see how long he respects your "right to life". Your right to life is not absolute. Pull that trigger and shoot the cop and the state may, and rightfully so, do away with your "right to life".
Are you an idiot?! Everything in your "scenario" consists of committing a crime and any fool knows that your life is forfeit/at stake in the commission of a crime.
You can't rationalize the denial of all rights based upon someone committing a crime. You've got apples and you're calling them oranges.

[davesdude]

hum is that a joke?? who asked for an exemple??? it seems more like you wanted to prove a point, to gain a certain amount of credibility in your arguments...unfortunately, i have already proved you that your example had nothing to do with the current prohibition...if you limit yourself to say that "if prohibition works there, it works everywhere", you're being close minded and thus not objective, therefor arguing blind folded, which is not productive to any debate...

sorry i am telling you this but too many times people mislead others going on totally different tracks,without any real logic, just as long as they have the last word...

[SampleMan]

Don't pigeonhole me.

You've got some serious attitude there. In trying to be very specific with you, so as to best respond without opening another line of argument I used the qualifier, "as long as your aren't"

I've never found anyone to take that qualifier as an accusation of, "you are". Indeed, by using that qualifier, I was attempting NOT to pigeon hole you, while simultaneously stating that I was only agreeing as far as your statement went.

You've got some real hostility going. What gives?

[davesdude]

Yeah excellent point, explained in details! Thanks!

[philman_36]

You can't refer to someone else's post...
Right you are. My apologies.

I wouldn't really care whether they were legal or not.
All of those things would be your right...until legislation is enacted that removes that right, that is. If you can't descriminate then guess what...you'll do, or not do, just what the law says.
Unless, that is, you want to be a criminal and commit a crime. You could go out of business or even go to the black market (though insurance doesn't seem like an item for that market).

[tacticalogic]

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.

Seems plain enough.

[Bogey]

I'm talking about suing the manufacturer of the product for damages.
You can't sue a tomato manufacturer if you grow and consume your own tomatoes.

---

You think the government is going to make growing your own legal?
Have you seen the jail terms for people smuggling tobacco?
Try to produce bourbon out of the house. Wine, beer fine. Not bourbon.
You have no prayer of legalization without a price tag of 700.00 a bag or more at the table from a retail outlet that can afford the equivalent of an alcohol license.
Another poster said he paid 850.00 for medicinal. Legally.
This is a capitalist country, not Amsterdam.
75% going to the government. Like booze and smokes.
Their going to make it expensive and call it a voluntary tax. Don't want to pay it, quit.

You have to be kidding.

[philman_36]

You've got some real hostility going.
More opinions?
What gives?
A charity?