Topic: Holding a new administration to their promises (Read 16043 times)

Joe Sixpack · « **on:** February 05, 2009, 03:45:31 PM »

Quote

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. Those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account — to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day — because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."
-Obama's inaugural address

I have tried pretty hard to suspend my all-permeating cynicism to this point... so I will ask the question in a serious manner:

What are the chances that the Obama administration applies their "empirical yardstick" to clearly failing policies of the US government which
a) don't work
b) don't help families
c) have no room or concern for dignity
and end the "War on Drugs"?

BizB · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2009, 05:00:53 PM »

It's a cash cow. They won't.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2009, 05:30:24 PM »

Not only that, but the war on drugs is an unending source of political capital as well.

Since by the nature of what it is it is unwinnable, it will always be a great excuse to pass "tougher" laws that make politicians look like they're "doing something", but there will always be "lots more work to do".

Politicians never willingly ditch a cause that's that valuable to them, politically.

Wunderkind · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2009, 09:33:28 AM »

As Demo already stated, but for some reason I need to reiterate...

Politicians will keep the War on Drugs for the same reason women keep putting on makeup. It makes them look good.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2009, 03:55:33 PM »

How does one suspend one's all-permeating cynicism? I think the chances of a, b, or c happening is almost infinitely more probable.

12AX7 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2009, 04:49:36 PM »

Quote from: BizB on February 05, 2009, 05:00:53 PM

It's a cash cow. They won't.

I used to think the same thing. But really; it isn't.
If legalized, there would be virtually no expense enforcing 'drug laws', in addition to the savings of not housing currently and future incarcerated non-violent drug offenders, the cost of them going through the court system, and the economic cost of these people losing their jobs (wages to spend and be TAXED) plus the cost to the employer to find and train another employee (and it's always the consumer who eats the bill).

On the income side; if a product is legally bought and sold - it can be TAXED. As a luxury item; it can be taxed heavily. Those people who do use and are gainfully employed would stay that way; generating income that can be TAXED and not having to resort to government-funded programs to survive, and spending their income from those jobs in our economy - instead of the government having to step in and (now) nearly completely take over.

Another huge, often overlooked benefit, would be an entirely new industry in the US - hemp. There's a cash cow right there. Imagine the jobs created to build that industry; the revenue an entire new industry would generate, in addition to the plethora of products and other benefits from hemp; which - btw - doesn't even have THC in it. Smoking it would be the same as smoking a t-shirt or a rope; literally. Even this non-party hemp is illegal here in the US due to our utterly ridiculous drug laws; which, btw, weren't created from health and or safety concerns or for the public's welfare. They were entirely conjured up based solely on racism. Read about Anslinger, and his reasoning - if you can call it that - for originally making drugs/drug use illegal.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2009, 05:01:06 PM »

You're forgetting the obvious way that the current system is a cash cow.

Because of its perpetually escalating nature, it's an endless source of budgeting for enforcement, not to mention the property seizures.

FAR more of a cash cow from those two things alone for TPTB than if it were legalized.

12AX7 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2009, 07:41:21 PM »

Does not compute.

Quote from: Demosthenes on February 06, 2009, 05:01:06 PM

You're forgetting the obvious way that the current system is a cash cow.

Because of its perpetually escalating nature, it's an endless source of budgeting for enforcement,

That is a cost; not an income. A spiraling-out-of-control cost, in fact:
The domestic drug enforcement budget has increased more than ten-fold since 1981 from 696.8 million dollars to $8.5 billion. There is no evidence that this dramatic increase in drug enforcement dollars has reduced drug abuse. Rather, overdose deaths and emergency room mentions of drugs are at record highs. Moreover, law enforcement efforts have not made drugs less available – in fact the price of heroin and cocaine have decreased while their purity has increased indicating a steadily growing supply.
( from here: http://www.csdp.org/edcb/fy2000.htm )
A cost that would be reduced by legalization. And I didn't forget it:

Quote from: 12AX7 on February 06, 2009, 04:49:36 PM

If legalized, there would be virtually no expense enforcing 'drug laws',

Unless you meant 'cash cow' as in somehow TPTB are profiting from the drug war (in monetary terms. I
realize the benefit politically).

Quote from: Demosthenes on February 06, 2009, 05:01:06 PM

not to mention the property seizures.

FAR more of a cash cow from those two things alone for TPTB than if it were legalized.

As for how property seizures add up against the tax revenue (if legalized) for marijuana alone:

2007 net seizure assets from drug enforcement - $54,944,293 ( from here: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/ind/MARIJUANA.Seizures,_Drug_Enforcement_Administration.1.html , and the .pdf I'm referencing is here: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t4382007.pdf )

Now, if we figure we have 14.8 million marijuana users in the US (from here: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/statistics.html and the .pdf I'm using is : http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/statistics/Marijuana_2008.pdf ) and a one-dollar tax on each "pack" of marijuana cigarettes, and figure a pack a week; in one month's time, the government would have recieved
(14,800,000users X 1dollartax X 4weeks/month = ) $59,200,000 - slightly exceeding the 'revenue' of $54, 944, 293 in seizures which took an entire year.

So, with the law enforcement budget being a cost, not a source of revenue; and the total yearly revenue from seizures not adding up to even a month's worth of taxes, I fail to see your point.

edited to install a missing zero ...

12AX7 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2009, 08:40:12 AM »

Also; we're still overlooking that there would be another entire industry; with all it's peripheral industries, to tax. Hemp. Not to mention the economic boost; negating a portion of the government spending on "stimulus" packages. It obviously wouldn't solve the economy problem totally; but there's no doubt it would be a huge help. Tax revenue, jobs, domestically produced and exported products... I'm sure there's more I'm not even considering.

BizB · « **Reply #9 on:** February 08, 2009, 12:55:14 PM »

Which other "victimless crimes" should also be decriminalized? Prostitution? Skateboarding?

12AX7 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 08, 2009, 08:38:42 PM »

Quote from: BizB on February 08, 2009, 12:55:14 PM

Which other "victimless crimes" should also be decriminalized?

Honestly? Probably almost ALL of them.

Ok, so maybe not ALL of them, but a significant portion for sure. Prostitution? Why hell yes. I never understood how people went along with the notion that the government has some say so over a woman's decision to take immediate compensation for a service the recipient is willing to pay for. It's HER pussy. If she wants to sell to you the experience of using it; that should HER decision ALONE. Having said that; I'm all for capital punishment for pimps. THAT isn't a victimless crime.

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #11 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:38:58 PM »

Presumably it is a contract between two consenting adults, just like the actual prostitution.

12AX7 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:05:51 AM »

I don't know of the pimps you talk about then. As far as I have any understanding on the subject; it's not a consensual agreement or contract at all. It's extortion at best; and very close to slavery at worst. Following your line of reasoning; I suppose I could go into a bank and stick a gun in the teller's face and demand money. If they "consent" and hand me the money, it should be ok, right? No crime at all. It's a contract between me and the teller. Hand the money; and I wont blow your face off. Sounds perfectly legit and legal to me. |>

Joe Sixpack · « **Reply #13 on:** February 09, 2009, 11:38:51 AM »

Except it's not the teller's money, and there's the threat of force.

I'm just saying that if you're breaking down prostitution into a simple exchange of money and services, it'd be hard to define "pimping" in such a way that it covers what you're talking about but does not cover any other "middle man" arrangement. It's the coercion that should be illegal, not necessarily the "pimp" position.

12AX7 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 09, 2009, 11:54:46 AM »

Quote from: Joe Sixpack on February 09, 2009, 11:38:51 AM

It's the coercion that should be illegal, not necessarily the "pimp" position.

OK, I'll buy that. I suppose if she wants a ..."manager", or bodyguard. . or a personal ASSistant, booking agent..., it should be legal.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #15 on:** February 09, 2009, 12:17:03 PM »

12, it's a cost to taxpayers. It's income to the agencies that use the war on drugs to justify their budgets. An ever growing and increasing income.

12AX7 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 09, 2009, 01:29:14 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on February 09, 2009, 12:17:03 PM

12, it's a cost to taxpayers. It's income to the agencies that use the war on drugs to justify their budgets. An ever growing and increasing income.

I still wouldn't call it income, but I agree that the War on Drugs is used to justify the existence and budgets of several programs and agencies. In fact, I believe they use the astronomical cost itself to justify their budget. Could we agree that that is more "political capital" than an actual "income"? I stated before I realize the political benefits. ("Politics" as defined by number 6. @ Dictionary.com -
6. use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position of power or control, as in business, university, etc.)

Beyond being used as a justification, though, I certainly wouldn't categorize it as income. It's a budget; which, while sometimes addressing revenue; always addresses projected costs.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #17 on:** February 09, 2009, 03:23:43 PM »

It's all a matter of point of view. They see it as income, we see it as costs.

And they see that income and the reasons for it BOTH as political capital. It's all a big, vicious circle.

RelandR · « **Reply #18 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:25:58 PM »

Let us not forget the Alcohol and Pharmaceutical lobbies that have income preservation to consider.

From the 'penny saved == penny earned' angle, retaining a large chunk of their market share is akin to preventing several of their prize cash cows from wandering away from the farm.

Their potential losses would be staggering if there was another legal, easily obtainable alternative.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #19 on:** February 10, 2009, 03:57:23 PM »

Especially one that is agricultural that anyone can grow. But then again, they could take the Monsanto/Pioneer Hi-Bred route and patent the seeds as IP and sue farmers and individuals who received cross pollination from any of their crops.

xolik · « **Reply #20 on:** February 10, 2009, 04:49:54 PM »

Is Amerika socialist yet? I'm getting impatient.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #21 on:** February 10, 2009, 04:53:52 PM »

Nope, still a plutocracy.

BizB · « **Reply #22 on:** February 10, 2009, 04:54:18 PM »

I'm moving to NH.
Legislators tell feds to back off
New speech, press, gun or ammunition limits 'altogether void'
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=87987

Min · « **Reply #23 on:** February 10, 2009, 09:09:34 PM »

Yeah, we should have a place that SELLS books.

Vespertine · « **Reply #24 on:** February 10, 2009, 10:12:12 PM »

Quote from: Detta on February 10, 2009, 09:09:34 PM

Yeah, we should have a place that SELLS books.

Was the eye-rolling smilie implied, or did you just forget it?

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Holding a new administration to their promises (Read 16043 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7