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
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.
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.
From our previous conversations, I have very little patience for your inability to read my posts correctly. I backpedaled away from nothing.
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?
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.
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".
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.
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?
Yeah excellent point, explained in details! Thanks!
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).
Seems plain enough.
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.
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.