There's no need for any regulations on business at all! Just let the market self-regulate!

No or limited regulation helped bring us where we are. I'm ok with corporate accountability.

 

Regulation by people who have no idea what they are talking about is what got us where we are today. Take regulation of the financial sector away from the idiots in Congress and let the Federal Reserve handle it. There is a large difference between "accountability" and laws that make the situation worse. I would say laws that bankrupt our largest banks artificially make things worse.

There's no need for any regulations on business at all! Just let the market self-regulate!

 

nationalize everything!!! let the government decide for us!!!

Legalize 'it" and collect the tax dollars.

 

Complete waste of time for the revenue it would bring in.

Complete waste of time for the revenue it would bring in.

Have to disagree with you here. Its not just revenue. More importantly, its the removal of costs. You go from MJ being a big money drain, to it being on the revenue side. Overall contribution to the government coffers is a huge net positive.

 

Have to disagree with you here. Its not just revenue. More importantly, its the removal of costs. You go from MJ being a big money drain, to it being on the revenue side. Overall contribution to the government coffers is a huge net positive.

 

The taxes on cigarettes bring in something like 7 billion dollars a year in revenues. Granted I am not in law enforcement, but it really doesn't seem like we spend a whole lot of money on dope law enforcement, and when you add to it the fraction of revenues that it would bring in, I don't see it being worth nearly as much as it is being made out to be. Seriously what are we talking about, $10 billion tops in savings and added revenues? Don't forget you would still need to subtract out the added revenues being made from fines for posession, and added death rates from cancer and the like. Sure its something, but once you factor in the lawsuits, and everything else under the sun, I don't see it being worth it.

The taxes on cigarettes bring in something like 7 billion dollars a year in revenues. Granted I am not in law enforcement, but it really doesn't seem like we spend a whole lot of money on dope law enforcement, and when you add to it the fraction of revenues that it would bring in, I don't see it being worth nearly as much as it is being made out to be. Seriously what are we talking about, $10 billion tops in savings and added revenues? Don't forget you would still need to subtract out the added revenues being made from fines for posession, and added death rates from cancer and the like. Sure its something, but once you factor in the lawsuits, and everything else under the sun, I don't see it being worth it.

 

I'm not saying I'm on the side of legalizing it, but...

 

Is that 7 billion in Federal dollars? The state and cities also tax cigarettes. And the savings would not only be from dope law enforcement, but how many people are in prison, draining tax dollars just for possession that would in turn be free to go?

 

I'm not saying I'm on the side of legalizing it, but...

 

Is that 7 billion in Federal dollars? The state and cities also tax cigarettes. And the savings would not only be from dope law enforcement, but how many people are in prison, draining tax dollars just for possession that would in turn be free to go?

 

Don't forget prosecution costs.

Don't forget prosecution costs.

 

But they work on a salary, don't they? We would still have those costs, but the prosecutors would just be working on real cases. And people wouldn't wait for a trial for so long and be able to spend time going on the View or Letterman.

 

Have to disagree with you here. Its not just revenue. More importantly, its the removal of costs. You go from MJ being a big money drain, to it being on the revenue side. Overall contribution to the government coffers is a huge net positive.

Ahem, I was talking about prostitution.

 

Keeps violence off he streets (rapes and robberies of women, can't go to the police,) and if we force mandatory HIV/STD testing to work in a legal whorehouse, we are protecting the public health as well.

Edited February 5, 200917 yr by santo=dorf

But they work on a salary, don't they? We would still have those costs, but the prosecutors would just be working on real cases. And people wouldn't wait for a trial for so long and be able to spend time going on the View or Letterman.

What about the taxpayers' cost of housing non-violent offenders (just noticed you mentioned it) and people waiting longer for trials?

 

My dad is a prosecutor and tells me how pissed he gets because he has to waste the court's time and money to show up to see a woman ask again for an extension on the $75 fine she owes for possesion. It's so stupid.

 

The war on drugs costs at least $20 billion a year.

Edited February 5, 200917 yr by santo=dorf

What about the taxpayers' cost of housing non-violent offenders (just noticed you mentioned it) and people waiting longer for trials?

 

My dad is a prosecutor and tells me how pissed he gets because he has to waste the court's time and money to show up to see a woman ask again for an extension on the $75 fine she owes for possesion. It's so stupid.

 

The war on drugs costs at least $20 billion a year.

 

Look back. I brought that up. Here I was responding to someone suggesting we would save on the cost of prosecutors themselves.

 

Look back. I brought that up. Here I was responding to someone suggesting we would save on the cost of prosecutors themselves.

 

Less crimes to prosecute leads to less prosecutors, I would think.

Edited February 5, 200917 yr by StrangeSox

Less crimes to prosecute leads to less prosecutors, I would think.

It would seem that way. But I think what Mr Eye was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that prosecutors already have way more cases to try than they have time for. You probably won't cut prosecutors - they'd just spend more time on other things.

 

Which, by the way, is not a bad thing.

 

It would seem that way. But I think what Mr Eye was getting at (correct me if I'm wrong) is that prosecutors already have way more cases to try than they have time for. You probably won't cut prosecutors - they'd just spend more time on other things.

 

Which, by the way, is not a bad thing.

 

Exactly.

Fair enough. Either way, its results in a more efficient use of resources.

Fair enough. Either way, its results in a more efficient use of resources.

Agreed.