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
"You must be a pro-WOD double-agent, trying to make us think that people's brains get fried on drugs and tap out nonsense like that on their computer.
It's working"
haha thanks for the laugh!!
Frack. Riiiight. Well as far as I am concerned that is three quarters of the fatty-fat out of shape country.
Thank you. Now then, we've established that prohibition CAN and DOES work. You wanted an example. There you go.
If drugs are so easy to get NOW, why do you care if they are made legal? I mean, if drugs are easier to get than a pack of cigs, then only a complete idiot would get caught, right? Are those the people you want to give drugs to freely, anyway?
Which only makes the case for me not paying someone else's health-care bill. That in no way makes a pro-drug argument any stronger.
Of course not, it made criminals rich, and flush with cash they were able to corrupt everyone from street cops to judges and politicians.
While it was not part of this study, the economic impact of legalized hemp would dwarf the fiscal impact of legalizing pot.
Regulation should be fairly simple, restrict licensing to pharmacists and licensed alcohol dealers.
I also don't see the point in limiting taxation to either "like all other goods" or "comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco". Consumers are now paying $100-500/ounce for a plant that's easier to grow than tobacco. If I can buy a pack of 20 Marlboros for $4, and everybody involved in producing and selling that pack made a good profit, those numbers can easily be matched for marijuana production. Set a government established price of $50 for a pack of 20 "joints", or a loose ounce, with $40 of it split equally between the Feds and the States, and $3 going to fund drug rehab for anybody who wants help.
So now you are saying that prohibiting pot is going to throw of the equilibrium of the planet? I'm trying to be serious, but you aren't making it any easier.
That's because it wasn't really prohibition. It was NOT illegel to possess and drink alcohol for personal use. What kind of prohibition is that?
And as evidence that prohibition CAN and DOES work you use "trespassing" as an example? HA! Too funny.
Again, your argument was shot down in flames. It certainly is a form of PROHIBITION and it certainly works. Of course, that's merely ONE example, but that's all you asked for. Are all prohibitions 100% successful? Of course not. Most aren't. People still do all kinds of things, despite prohibitions. Wouldn't it be cheaper and more economical to just not have ANY laws to enforce? Of course, but at what cost to society?
Chill out, you'll feel better after you've had something to eat.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You got anything resembling an argument under all that ad hominem garbage, or are you just going to vomit all day?
same applies
Thought so. I'll stick with my non enlightened views on social norms, taboos, and prohibited behavior. But just so everyone will know, would you be OK with an age of consent law for goats, or is that too much of an infringement as well?
Put it in the same category as cigarettes. They will find out what real punishment is when they try to light up and the smoking nazis descend upon 'em like the wrath of Hell.
The potheads will be trying to get it made illegal again!!!
Thinkin' about it, and I still don't see any connection between drugs getting legalized and needle-sharing suddenly stopping.
please, again, think of the fact legalizing will give money back!
I'm aware of that already. What concerns me is the possibility that legalizing could lead to an increase in expenses greater than whatever decrease we end up with.
WTF?? are you being serious?? we all know that already!!! but what are the chances of OD with unpure product VS pure product?? come on man, give a bit of thought in what you say!!
Well, since I'm obviously a raging idiot who knows nothing about drugs, and you are a never-ending font of drug knowledge, why don't you tell me what the difference in chance is? All I said was that ODs are still possible with pure product.
My #96 was to you. My apologies, I clicked the wrong "reply".
Keep in mind that a large portion of the drugs that the public perceives as "illegal" drugs aren't actually "illegal" at all, they're simply regulated and criminalized under the CSA.
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.