72 Bodies found in North Mexico

[TheStig]

Like all of the additives in cigarettes that we don't even know about? The more involved the government is, the more access to that power the businesses have. A government does not make money when a drug is legalized, it spends money.



That's a misconception as well. The DEA will say they can cut down, but they have never cut down the use of any substance. The true harm/benefit of any substance will always outweigh what any government agency reports, therefore if there is a will, there is a way. The DEA is also has leaders who take a cut from drug traffickers. Corruption exists regardless. Drug production and use exists regardless. At least if it were decriminalized, then the entire industry could generate tax revenue.


When it comes to substances or any lawmaking in general, people need to think for their own actions, and not this BS one-size-fits-all government. The kids have brains and parents, and the dumb just get dumber because of it.

So you don't think the government generates a lot of revenue from cigerette and alcohol sales? Thats the point of taxation and how they raise money.

The dea would also not have a choice to reduce workload. A lot of their rresponsibility would be removed. I'd imagine a fair bit of their busts are pot related.

 

[Crystallas]

So you don't think the government generates a lot of revenue from cigerette and alcohol sales? Thats the point of taxation and how they raise money.

The dea would also not have a choice to reduce workload. A lot of their rresponsibility would be removed. I'd imagine a fair bit of their busts are pot related.

They don't make pure revenue. That same money that is made from taxes is spent back on alcohol and tobacco.

The national state government makes $17 million from taxes on tobacco a year. Illinois makes just under 1 million.
The federal government makes 63 billion.

The total state governments spend:
13 mil on regulations
4 million on lobby
2.3 mil on inspections
and I really don't know how many more misc costs with research and grants going to pro and anti-tobacco organizations.

The federal government spends 84 billion of its revenue to legislature and regulation linked to tobacco alone.


Of that money, the funds spent that are recirculated are now tax exempt in more than 50% of the cases, meaning that the government departments are counter efficient at taking the revenue and applying it, how most people would like to see it applied.

The government then makes another $900,000 a year on fines, but spends over $2 million in court fees, police reporting, administrative services.

If tobacco was deregulated instead, the government would make around the same amount, maybe more with far less expenses.

Alcohol is along the same lines, and as local and federal level government catches up with the numbers, they keep raising the fees for permits and licenses. Since the fees have surpassed the 2x mark, for cost to make, the microbrewery trend has exploded in the united states. More people make wine and moonshine just to get through the loopholes, and that is missed revenue for the government. The same thing is happening with tobacco, except we are starting to see more use of protected land to grow it, like reservations. Tax except, missed revenue.

Let me ask you this then. You insist that we have these laws written to protect us, what laws do we have that are written to protect us from the government? What laws are written to protect our own wealth?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I'd imagine it would bring in a good amount. Alcohol and Cigarettes don't lose the government money. You are also assuming it will be more. Illegality of the product drives up the price a lot. Do you think a cuban cigar would cost as much if you could just buy it at any old cigar shop?

You imagine? Do you have any numbers??

Again, there is absolutely no proof, whatsoever that people will start buying pot just because it is legal. None.

And yeah, I am assuming it will be more because I don't think the government will give a discount to pot users.

 

[TheStig]

You imagine? Do you have any numbers??

Again, there is absolutely no proof, whatsoever that people will start buying pot just because it is legal. None.

And yeah, I am assuming it will be more because I don't think the government will give a discount to pot users.

Illegal items and drugs sky rocket costs. Alcohol costs went up during prohibition when you had to go to speakeasy's.

 

[TheStig]

They don't make pure revenue. That same money that is made from taxes is spent back on alcohol and tobacco.

The national state government makes $17 million from taxes on tobacco a year. Illinois makes just under 1 million.
The federal government makes 63 billion.

The total state governments spend:
13 mil on regulations
4 million on lobby
2.3 mil on inspections
and I really don't know how many more misc costs with research and grants going to pro and anti-tobacco organizations.

The federal government spends 84 billion of its revenue to legislature and regulation linked to tobacco alone.


Of that money, the funds spent that are recirculated are now tax exempt in more than 50% of the cases, meaning that the government departments are counter efficient at taking the revenue and applying it, how most people would like to see it applied.

The government then makes another $900,000 a year on fines, but spends over $2 million in court fees, police reporting, administrative services.

If tobacco was deregulated instead, the government would make around the same amount, maybe more with far less expenses.

Alcohol is along the same lines, and as local and federal level government catches up with the numbers, they keep raising the fees for permits and licenses. Since the fees have surpassed the 2x mark, for cost to make, the microbrewery trend has exploded in the united states. More people make wine and moonshine just to get through the loopholes, and that is missed revenue for the government. The same thing is happening with tobacco, except we are starting to see more use of protected land to grow it, like reservations. Tax except, missed revenue.

Let me ask you this then. You insist that we have these laws written to protect us, what laws do we have that are written to protect us from the government? What laws are written to protect our own wealth?

I didn't insist we had laws written to protect us. But we do have different ways to protect us from government. They just aren't used. The 100 billion you cite is a nice revenue stream, its not the products fault we mismanage it. Don't you think we could cut at least a third out of our budget if we ran efficiently. How can the private parking company that bought the chicago meters make so much more than the city? Just because the government mismanages its money doesn't take away from the quality of the revenue stream. They don't need to advertise it, if you haven't figured out cigerattes are bad, you probably haven't heard of Darwin, which means you won't be expecting it. Furthermore, pot, doesn't have the negative health implications of cigarettes or alcohol. So the costs would be inherently lower.

 

[Crystallas]

Illegal items and drugs sky rocket costs. Alcohol costs went up during prohibition when you had to go to speakeasy's.

I can teach an entire history class on the prohibition of alcohol. It's not that simple to point to it, and blame high prices on the laws. There were considerable occurrences that happened, to affect the prices. The 3 most notable changes were, the women's rights movement and right to vote(no this isn't a sexist comment, it's just part of the timeline), World War I, subsidized and limiting trade for the benefit of all domestic industry.

Also, a speakeasy added many additional services. It wasn't the good that went up in price, it was the services needed to supply the goods, that raised the price of alcohol. A lot of that profit went to MANY new criminals. Something that continues to happen today, with the prohibition of cannabis, except we have one major difference now, and that is the time to evolve the industry, even in the black market, to sustain competitive pricing.

None of the economical cause and effects have been a surprise to anyone in the field, other than marxists and keynesians.

 

[Crystallas]

I didn't insist we had laws written to protect us. But we do have different ways to protect us from government. They just aren't used. The 100 billion you cite is a nice revenue stream, its not the products fault we mismanage it. Don't you think we could cut at least a third out of our budget if we ran efficiently. How can the private parking company that bought the chicago meters make so much more than the city? Just because the government mismanages its money doesn't take away from the quality of the revenue stream. They don't need to advertise it, if you haven't figured out cigerattes are bad, you probably haven't heard of Darwin, which means you won't be expecting it. Furthermore, pot, doesn't have the negative health implications of cigarettes or alcohol. So the costs would be inherently lower.

Because the government has two main flaws that lead to mismanagement. One are the obligations to enforce and regulate any law it makes. Two is that if someone in the department that mismanages the responsibilities, has far less consequences to suffer than the private company. If the company fails, it goes out of business. If the government fails, it just taxes and adds more. Congress grants lawmaking power to regulatory agencies, those regulatory agencies don't ever decide to eliminate themselves. There are members of congress who will not admit to failure, and they just feed more money into bad programs, or worse, if your Nixon or Obama, you make more programs stacked on top of bad programs, and fund them all with tax money.

This is just how our own human nature works. We think they are the experts or they have access to the experts, but all of them are biased and make solutions that work for themselves, not the general public. Thats why legalizing is always going to be a half-assed solution, because no matter what, you have half-asses running it.

 

[TheStig]

I can teach an entire history class on the prohibition of alcohol. It's not that simple to point to it, and blame high prices on the laws. There were considerable occurrences that happened, to affect the prices. The 3 most notable changes were, the women's rights movement and right to vote(no this isn't a sexist comment, it's just part of the timeline), World War I, subsidized and limiting trade for the benefit of all domestic industry.

Also, a speakeasy added many additional services. It wasn't the good that went up in price, it was the services needed to supply the goods, that raised the price of alcohol. A lot of that profit went to MANY new criminals. Something that continues to happen today, with the prohibition of cannabis, except we have one major difference now, and that is the time to evolve the industry, even in the black market, to sustain competitive pricing.

None of the economical cause and effects have been a surprise to anyone in the field, other than marxists and keynesians.

Legality certainly has an effect on pricing. They don't call it the black market because they are competive with walmart.

 

[TheStig]

Because the government has two main flaws that lead to mismanagement. One are the obligations to enforce and regulate any law it makes. Two is that if someone in the department that mismanages the responsibilities, has far less consequences to suffer than the private company. If the company fails, it goes out of business. If the government fails, it just taxes and adds more. Congress grants lawmaking power to regulatory agencies, those regulatory agencies don't ever decide to eliminate themselves. There are members of congress who will not admit to failure, and they just feed more money into bad programs, or worse, if your Nixon or Obama, you make more programs stacked on top of bad programs, and fund them all with tax money.

This is just how our own human nature works. We think they are the experts or they have access to the experts, but all of them are biased and make solutions that work for themselves, not the general public. Thats why legalizing is always going to be a half-assed solution, because no matter what, you have half-asses running it.

Thats fine and I agree our govenment is mismanged but thats like saying lets get rid of income taxes because the irs is expensive. Its easier said then done to cut cost and has nothing to do with creating new revenue streams.

 

[Crystallas]

Thats fine and I agree our govenment is mismanged but thats like saying lets get rid of income taxes because the irs is expensive. Its easier said then done to cut cost and has nothing to do with creating new revenue streams.

Actually, there are quite a few good solutions for replacing the IRS Businesses and organizations who get special treatment from the government don't like the ideas, the other 90% of America should.

 

[Crystallas]

Legality certainly has an effect on pricing. They don't call it the black market because they are competive with walmart.

It's still apples to oranges. You can have Nintendo with a new game console that is released before xmas. Walmart sells it for $300, the open market resells it for $600. Or you also could have the Nike store selling their hottest shoes for $300, and you can go on the open market, and find genuine for $80. Both are technically the black market, and both have major fluctuations. The same will happen with substances, because legal or illegal doesn't change the criteria for supply and demand.

The whole point I'm trying to make, and maybe Prope as well, is that you can't assume a factual effect based on legality.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

The whole point I'm trying to make, and maybe Prope as well, is that you can't assume a factual effect based on legality.

It is, and you say here it much better than I have.

Anyways, I've taught econ for 3 years at the regular level, and the past two team teaching it with special education and every year is the same thing. No matter the level of student, they all think that legalizing marijuana is going to fix the ills of society.

When they asked how that would work, the answer is always the same; 'Well the government can tax the hell out of it, and think of all the revenue the government will get.'

Inevitably, that same kid who proposes the 150% tax on marijuana will lament about how it is bullshit that he is 17 years old and so much tax is taken out of his paycheck from Jewel.

So I'm guessing that Stig here is probably 23 or younger, and probably (like you mentioned) just recently took an econ class where the professor has pictures of Keynes all over his office.

 

[X]

I had a feeling a thread on mexico would eventually wind up being drug related.

 

[TheStig]

It's still apples to oranges. You can have Nintendo with a new game console that is released before xmas. Walmart sells it for $300, the open market resells it for $600. Or you also could have the Nike store selling their hottest shoes for $300, and you can go on the open market, and find genuine for $80. Both are technically the black market, and both have major fluctuations. The same will happen with substances, because legal or illegal doesn't change the criteria for supply and demand.

The whole point I'm trying to make, and maybe Prope as well, is that you can't assume a factual effect based on legality.

The problem with your examples are one has an extreme shortage with high demand and the other isn't the same product. Weed has a definete supply and is rarely in such demand. The legalization would further stabilize demand by having less product lost to seizure.

 

[TheStig]

It's still apples to oranges. You can have Nintendo with a new game console that is released before xmas. Walmart sells it for $300, the open market resells it for $600. Or you also could have the Nike store selling their hottest shoes for $300, and you can go on the open market, and find genuine for $80. Both are technically the black market, and both have major fluctuations. The same will happen with substances, because legal or illegal doesn't change the criteria for supply and demand.

The whole point I'm trying to make, and maybe Prope as well, is that you can't assume a factual effect based on legality.

The problem with your examples are one has an extreme shortage with high demand and the other isn't the same product. Weed has a definete supply and is rarely in such demand. The legalization would further stabilize supply by having less product lost to seizure.

 

[TheStig]

It is, and you say here it much better than I have.

Anyways, I've taught econ for 3 years at the regular level, and the past two team teaching it with special education and every year is the same thing. No matter the level of student, they all think that legalizing marijuana is going to fix the ills of society.

When they asked how that would work, the answer is always the same; 'Well the government can tax the hell out of it, and think of all the revenue the government will get.'

Inevitably, that same kid who proposes the 150% tax on marijuana will lament about how it is bullshit that he is 17 years old and so much tax is taken out of his paycheck from Jewel.

So I'm guessing that Stig here is probably 23 or younger, and probably (like you mentioned) just recently took an econ class where the professor has pictures of Keynes all over his office.

Lol when you assume you make a ass out of you and me. And where did I say that it would fix the ills of society. I merely said that in these rought times, legalizing a non dangerous drug would create a new revenue stream. Which it would. Or perhaps you just prefer to print more paper?

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Lol when you assume you make a ass out of you and me. And where did I say that it would fix the ills of society. I merely said that in these rought times, legalizing a non dangerous drug would create a new revenue stream. Which it would. Or perhaps you just prefer to print more paper?

....and there you go assuming.

Did you read the part in my last post where I said you said those things? Clearly it is in there, and I'm not talking about other people who have posed the same question.

Yes, you said it would create a revenue stream, and Crystallas and I have both gone to lengths to show why that is a silly notion.

 

[Crystallas]

Look Stig, you have been very civil in this discussion. Nobody is trying to make an ass out of you, and I'm personally sorry if that's how you feel.

I agree with Prope because I base my rule of government and economics on whether "all men are created equal" and that includes the people on the street and people in Washington. Everyone will make mistakes, but the moment you give people that freedom to make mistakes, the sooner we can learn, and less people suffer from 1 mistake. That is just my point of view. No politician, scientist, professor, or an individual poster should be put on a pedestal of any sort, especially when someone has power over other individuals.

 

[Crystallas]

I had a feeling a thread on mexico would eventually wind up being drug related.

The article suggested links to drug smuggling, which takes it out of context for a cultural/race discussion.

:smoke: <-Why does the smoke guy have a sombrero!

LMAO!

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I had a feeling a thread on mexico would eventually wind up being drug related.

Of course when the article references drugs, it will probably end up that way. Seeing as the other way in which a thread about Mexico could go, I imagine this one is much safer.