Posted on 06/06/2005 8:42:41 AM PDT by Che Chihuahua
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A founding father of the Reagan Revolution has put his John Hancock on a pro-pot report.
Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale. Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to $6.2 billion a year.
The report, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition," (available at www.prohibitioncosts.org) was written by Jeffrey A. Miron, a professor at Harvard , and largely paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), a Washington, D.C., group advocating the review and liberalization of marijuana laws.
At times the report uses some debatable assumptions: For instance, Miron assumes a single figure for every type of arrest, for example, but the average pot bust is likely cheaper than bringing in a murder or kidnapping suspect. Friedman and other economists, however, say the overall work is some of the best yet done on the costs of the war on marijuana.
At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for both financial and moral reasons.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Wow! Back when I used to smoke it, I'd just want to sit down in front of the TV and watch a funny movie or hang out with my friends. All that time, I was at risk for becoming a brother-killing, insane communist. Amazing that I turned out so well.
Actually, that man's writings would be really hysterical but for the fact that people actually believed him, and now we are suffering with the WOD.
An accusation I've backed up and you've stopped even trying to rebut.
you've done nothing but utter weak arguments laced with ad hominem attacks.
Nonsense; what ad hominems have I posted?
Your weakest argument by far, is that the Founding Fathers by their silence on the issue of dope smoking intended no Federal involvement.
No involvement in any intrastate drug trade, I should have said. The Interstate Commerce Clause does give Congress the authority to regulate the interstate drug trade.
They were also silent on the issues of terrorism, employee pensions, broadcast radio and television regulation, kiddie porn, securities fraud, wire fraud, product liability, and the existence of organized crime. Does that mean they intended no Federal involvement with those issues either?
Not if no interstate commerce, nor any other enumerated federal jurisdiction, was involved, no.
Although they were among smartest men of all time, the Founding Fathers weren't psychics. But being as smart as they were, a reasonable person, i.e., a non-Libertarian, could conclude that they wrote a dynamic document flexible enough to meet changing conditions.
They included an amendment process to meet changing conditions. You want the feds regulating intrastate trade, get an amendment passed.
the Libertarian position that if drugs were legalized (a) people would use drugs responsibly,
What makes you think that's the libertarian position? I think libertarians would agree with me that just as some now use the legal drug alcohol responsibly and some irresponsibly, if marijuana is legalized some would use it responsibly and some irresponsibly.
(b) the government would spend the money wisely on "cool" programs like those that put food in people's bellies,
I said that program was preferable to the War On Drugs ... I did not say it was wise or "cool." Also, I do not speak for libertarians (I'm not at all sure that those who consider themselves libertarians would agree that I am one). Your straw men are showing.
and (c) that crime will end
Another of your pathetic straw men.
drugs, even the legal ones like alcohol and prescription drugs generate crime of various types. Fraudulent prescriptions, counterfeit drugs,
Those crimes are "generated" by drugs? Does money "generate" check-kiting or counterfeiting of currency?
and DUIs come to mind.
Many people who drink don't then drive, so it's hard to see how alcohol "generates" this crime.
Unless you plan to offer free drugs, some people will probably resort to crime to support their legalized drug habit.
But fewer than do so today.
As for "imprisoning people who violated nobody's rights." That is a total scam argument. However, here's a real ad hominem attack for you: While some people might drink alcohol or use drugs "responsibly," there's a whole lot that won't, like the jerk that killed my relative while stoned on a controlled substance.
It was the killing that violated rights, and which should be punished, not the drug use.
The risk to society and to me personally of drug legalization is, and was not worth the high social and personal costs.
The opposite is true: we tried banning the drug alcohol and found that the high social and personal costs of doing so outweighed the benefits.
Smoke or self indulge in good health. But if you do so, please don't drive on taxpayer supported streets and highways. You'd violating our right to personal safety.
I agree, and I would oppose any proposal for legalizing driving under the influence of any impairing substance.
You may not be "rabid" but you seem to be right next door to it.
No one is talking about folks having some right or another to present a clear danget to others by driving or flying or any similar activity while under the influence of ANY substance, currently legal or otherwise, so you can quit beating that straw dog.
So the CRUX of the issue is this: do YOU, Che Chihuahua, have the legitimate authority to go to your next door neighbor and demand that he, on pain of being locked in your basement for five or ten years and having you steal his house, car and cash, either ingest or refrain from ingesting what YOU deem proper for him? If you think so, please let me know from whence this authority derives.
If you do NOT have this authority and yet you profess to believe that this is a nation of laws under the Constitution in which the government gets its (VERY LIMITED) authority from we, the People, how do you reconcile this disconnect? Unless you happen to think that we, the People, do NOT own our own lives, but are the property of government, to be ruled by our betters (of which you appear to think you are one) for our own good and to ensure that we do not damage government property... Is THAT what it is? Otherwise, what is your rationalization for the evil that is the War on Some Drugs?
You are, however, 100% correct in noting that freedom has a price... Just wrong in context. The price is the effort it takes to keep self-righteous jackasses from running roughshod over us in the name of protecting us from ourselves. If you think that describes you, well, you'd be the one to know either way.
The same Supremes who just upheld the evils of the war on Pot were the ones who, in the 19th century, said that it was OK for folks who looked like my wife to be owned by other people because they weren't fully human or some such thing. I am really impressed with the logic and consistency of our FedGov. The Constitution is merely something they use to wipe their nasty butts with, not something to be honored and OBEYED (by government) as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.
"Look, dopers think that what they do is invisible to the rest of us."
Damn! You found me out! Busted!
"But the JBT's do get to confiscate a lot of money and stuff without due process and they get to keep it all."
It's the American way Bud and don't you forget. Damn doper/commies!
Going down hard FUR SHUR!!!!!!!!
Maybe in your peaceful neighborhood and work location all of the people are Stepford citizens. But where's my right to a peaceful existence, while I mind my own damn business? I really don't give a damn what you or anyone else does to themselves until I have to make personal adjustments to maintain a peaceful life. But I guess I just have to put with the crap because your concept of freedom is more important than mine. That's some concept of equal protection under the law. Where do you get the authority to sanction such interference with MY freedom? Your ideas are fine if everyone acts as you probably would, but that isn't the reality I see on a daily basis.
Wow, I'm surprised that you could write for such a sustained period of time. Has the Ritalin helped you any?
Your "right" to a peaceful existence? And just what right would that be? To be left alone in your own house to live as you and yours see fit? That is the only right you have that comes even CLOSE to a right to a peaceful existence. If you mean that you have a "right" to suppress the otherwise peaceful behaviors of others to ensure your tranquility, I do hate to disillusion you, but it ain't happening. There IS no such right, anymore than there is a "right" to murder the unborn or the helpless or a "right" to not be offended by the words or gestures of others...
But I guess you think that your "peace" is more important than a Constitutionally-limited government dedicated to protecting the equal rights of ALL its citizens, even the unpopular ones. Controlling the otherwise peaceable activities of others to ensure that you remain unoffended and pristine is OK by you, as long as YOU are the controllER and not the controllEE, right?
Where do you get the authority to sanction such interference with MY freedom?
Perhaps from the same place that you presume to get the sanctioned authority to interfere with the freedom of others?
Also I notice you did not respond to my question. Is that because you have no answer for it? I suspect so.
If YOU, as an individual, do NOT have the legitimate authority to do your neighbor the way FedGov does, and if this Constitutional Republic rests on the individual sovereignty of We, the People, with government performing its LIMITED functions in our names and on our behalf, AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED, just exactly WHERE does the legitimate authority for a war on some drugs or a war on firearms or a war on ANYTHING come from???? If you can't give what is not yours to give and I cannot give what is not MINE to give, where DO they get the authority they exercise? Or have we, the individual PEOPLE, lost our sovereignty and become SUBJECTS, to be RULED by government? Your answer will be enlightening. Your NON-answer will be equally enlightening... but won't really reflect well on you...
Another dog done gone.
How you do you know these “dopers” you pass on the street are really “dopers” and how do you know these “dopers” are not alcoholics? You don’t. In your previous statement you have implied you think you can “read minds” like when you resorted to ad hominem attacks on libertarians claiming you personally knew what each and every libertarian actually thinks. You are clearly a busybody who thinks they can read minds.
If these “dopers” are violently aggressive, that is a crime – and there is no need for you to pretend you can read their minds or the blood chemistry to determine what substances they may or may not have taken.
You sound like a run-of-the-mill bigot that assumes all people you don’t like on the street are “dopers”
Maybe in your peaceful neighborhood and work location all of the people are Stepford citizens.
Yep, you are sounding like a run-of-the-mill bigot – either everybody is a “doper” or they are a “Stepford citizen” robot. He’s the rub – it is none of your fricken business.
But I guess I just have to put with the crap because your concept of freedom is more important than mine.
Get a clue – actions that violate your rights are already against the law.
That's some concept of equal protection under the law. Where do you get the authority to sanction such interference with MY freedom?
There are laws against people that violate other people’s rights so there is no need for you to pretend you can read minds or for you to stick your nose in other people’s underwear drawer to see what they are “really” up to.
For somebody that is clueless as to the meaning of ad hominem attacks - you sure do spend a lot of time spewing ad hominem attacks.
People like Che are usually drinkers and would squeal like a pig (or Ned Beatty) if someone tried to take away their beloved diversion yet they fail to see the gross hypocrisy in their positions.
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.