Which drugs do you think should be legal for personal use? Part II

[Napoleon]

Defunding Planned Parenthood would NOT save money!

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

But the question is, then, would you rather continue to spend endlessly on drug prevention programs and locking people up, or would you rather legalize it and tax it as a small step toward debt reduction?  For the third time, now, I've said that this won't pay off the entire debt, but it would help.  And let's keep in mind, those numbers come from state-by-state marijuana consumption, as it is presently illegal.  If it is legalized, then, as I have also said, demand will go up, which would concurrently increase tax revenues.  There are millions of things the government could do to reduce the debt and deficit, but I don't think you quite understood my argument.

I understand your argument; I just disagree with your assumptions. Deriving taxes from marijuana is no more of a first step toward fiscal balance than defunding NPR or Planned Parenthood is. I don't think that such things should be pursued under that line of reasoning because unless further steps are implemented, as all such an argument is good for is patting yourself on the back, making yourself feel noble, and hiding that ideology is the sole reason behind the action; if there were no moral element to your vindiction, fighting for 1% of the deficit and calling it a good first step would be foolish and not something taken seriously.

Well, keep in mind that debt reduction is not the only reason why I believe pot should be legal.  I believe that the government should only spend if it's justified.  I see spending on NPR and Planned Parenthood as good things for the country, therefore I believe the spending is justified.  I do not believe stopping people from using pot justifies spending, thus I see it as something to cut as a positive step towards reducing the deficit.

[Cincinnatus]

Using your numbers:

$14.1 billion savings by not fighting marijuana (and other drugs, so this number is higher than the savings if only marijuana was legalized)
+$778.2 million in new tax revenue
=14.8782 billion total to government

2011 budget deficit: $1.3 trillion
2011 total debt: $14.7 trillion

New revenue+savings as percentage of deficit: 1.14%
New revenue+savings as percentage of total debt: 0.102%

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized on moral grounds, the argument that it will even represent a drop in the bucket as far as the deficit/debt is concerned is at best, shall we say, optimistic and, at worst, an outright lie. We would be better off fiscally if we confiscated all of Bill Gates's money than if we legalized and taxed marijuana.

That said, if for some reason marijuana is legalized nationally (not likely any time soon), it should be heavily fettered with sumptuary taxes, but the goal in that case would not be the money raised, but the disincentivization of usage.

But the question is, then, would you rather continue to spend endlessly on drug prevention programs and locking people up, or would you rather legalize it and tax it as a small step toward debt reduction?  For the third time, now, I've said that this won't pay off the entire debt, but it would help.  And let's keep in mind, those numbers come from state-by-state marijuana consumption, as it is presently illegal.  If it is legalized, then, as I have also said, demand will go up, which would concurrently increase tax revenues.  There are millions of things the government could do to reduce the debt and deficit, but I don't think you quite understood my argument.

I understand your argument; I just disagree with your assumptions. Deriving taxes from marijuana is no more of a first step toward fiscal balance than defunding NPR or Planned Parenthood is. I don't think that such things should be pursued under that line of reasoning because unless further steps are implemented, as all such an argument is good for is patting yourself on the back, making yourself feel noble, and hiding that ideology is the sole reason behind the action; if there were no moral element to your vindiction, fighting for 1% of the deficit and calling it a good first step would be foolish and not something taken seriously.

Well, keep in mind that debt reduction is not the only reason why I believe pot should be legal.  I believe that the government should only spend if it's justified.  I see spending on NPR and Planned Parenthood as good things for the country, therefore I believe the spending is justified.  I do not believe stopping people from using pot justifies spending, thus I see it as something to cut as a positive step towards reducing the deficit.

Planned parenthood is fine to an extent.  Funding NPR is not

[Peeperkorn]

All of them.

Concerning magical mushrooms, are they illegal? In my country is just wait for the rain and the day after collect them in the cow's poo.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Only online would marijuana be more popular than tobacco for legality.

[Free Palestine]

All of them except marihuana.

I hope you're trying to be ironic again. Otherwise you won a contest for this month's most idiotic statement.

Using context, the answer is obvious.