The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition

Harvard University ^ | June 2005 | Jeffrey A. Miron

[Marxbites]

Good one!

Has anybody ever looked at the narco traffic website where it nails politicians complicit in it? Been sometime and a computer ago, but it should google right up IMHO and may be worth checking.

AFAIC - if the FedGov persists in it's WOD, why aren't every single public employee and legislator drug tested as std policy with random 3-4 month checkups? After all what's good for the goose.......

[Cementjungle]

Unless there's a way the big drug companies can be assured the lion's share of profits from Marijuana, it'll never be legalized. People growing their own pot would eat into their (legal) drug sales as some folks may no longer need other drugs if they had marijuana.

[Gordongekko909]

NO ONE is entitled to health care on my dime. Especially not people whose health problems are caused by their own decisions.

The main argument for legalization is reducing government spending, right? I want to make sure that government spending will actually drop as a result of legalization. I don't want my tax dollars just redirected somewhere else.

[MileHi]

Don't want to see the DEA move under the ATF?

NO! I wan't DEA disbanded and ATF moved back under revenue with all the hardware donated to the National Guard.

[davesdude]

"The only thing prohibition has ever done is to create black markets operated by criminals and encourage the corruption of public officials.

It has never, never prevented people from doing what they are going to do."

To that, i challenge everyone to state the opposit!!!

[MileHi]

Hells bells, they can get 30x that from Big Tobacco, and did a few years ago.

Despite the fact that government profited far more from tobacco sales that "big tobacco" ever did.

[Gordongekko909]

Rehab isn't the only expense. Hospitals get clogged with hard drug ODs. Sharing needles leads to infections. Most of these end up in taxpayer-funded health care facilities, and their numbers will shoot up (no pun intended) if drugs get legalized.

Once again, the draw of legalization is decreasing government spending. Unless I can be certain that government spending will actually drop as a result of legalization, I have zero reason to support it. Therefore, get government out of the health care business first.

[MileHi]

Good comparison.

No, moronic comparison.

[MileHi]

Tell you what: get rid of all socialized medicine first, so that I don't have to pay these druggies' rehab costs, THEN we can talk about allowing dope to flow like water. Maybe.

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.

[Gone GF]

Ummm, I think this article was about legalizing pot, not hard drugs.

[butternut_squash_bisque]

More than I can count...

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[mlc9852]

I was being sarcastic. I thought that would be obvious. Sorry.:)

[theDentist]

No, not really.

[davesdude]

"We also prohibit pedophilia, yet it happens. Are you for dropping the prohibition on it, "as it can't be prohibited"?"


again you are trying to get away with something completely off topic!! so funny! pedophiles (ALL of them) are doing harm to somebody else...tokers and drug users are not on the same level of harmfulness as pedophiles are (some addicted with a lack of money will, but it's not, and far away, all of them who does...)if you think they are, well, there's nothing i can do for you! come on! lay off the kid's argument's and get a bit more in the subject...

[HumanitysEdge]

If marijuana was legal, where would doped-up kids get the money for their habits? Probably via my car radio or my neighbors' garage full of tools. Hence, their tentative right to drugs is outweighed by the tenuous but still existant property rights.

[MeanWestTexan]

that's the total debt.

I think the annual deficit is about $500 Billion.

This would knock it down to $480 billion. It's a start.

[butternut_squash_bisque]

A billion here, a billion there; pretty soon we're talking real money... (I forget who said that about millions... Everett Dirksen?)

[MileHi]

Sorry, some folks actually think that is an intellectual reply.

[davesdude]

"Rehab isn't the only expense. Hospitals get clogged with hard drug ODs. Sharing needles leads to infections. Most of these end up in taxpayer-funded health care facilities, and their numbers will shoot up (no pun intended) if drugs get legalized"

Have you really give any thoughts to the matter? If legalized, no more problem with sharing needles! Some standards will be implemented and people won't have to hide in disaffected buildings to do their thing... Plus, OD are oftenly attached to bad products (too potent or foreign chemicals laced to the product...) regulating those drugs would put a certain standard on the quality of the product...

[Gordongekko909]

I'm sorry: are you arguing against getting government out of the health care business? I don't have any studies showing whether increased health care expenses would overtake the money saved on enforcement. Nevertheless, I'm not willing to take that chance. Until socialized medicine is gone, my answer is "no."

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.