From the article: The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition.
Show me the study that predicts those costs exceeding the savings. Since those costs are being paid now to some extent, I know you can't do it. More brain dead warrior drivel.
Show me the study that predicts those costs exceeding the savings.
Since the study that is the subject of this thread seems to favor legalizing drugs to reduce government expenditures, I'm very surprised that it doesn't take these increased costs into account. It only looked at money saved on enforcement, not additional money shelled out for health care. That's kind of an important variable. And no, I don't have a study showing that the increased health care expenses would overtake the savings on enforcement. I kind of thought that an austere study such as this one would have taken that into account. I'm really disappointed that it didn't.
Since those costs are being paid now to some extent, I know you can't do it.
That made no sense. How does something being paid already make it not possible to figure out a predicted increase or decrease in those expenses? Isn't that what this study does already, albeit exclusively with enforcement expenses?
More brain dead warrior drivel.
So being concerned about an increase in taxes resulting from a policy whose stated goal is to decrease taxes makes me a "brain dead warrior?" Yeah, I'm not even going to bother with this.