Legalizing Narcotics for Tax Gains!?

This will be a nasty mess I'm sure.

There are many who do not agree and many who do not know of the VAST impact narcotics have in our lives. This impact goes much deeper then your children pooping pills. In so deep, that entire nations are ran from narcotic sales, including no small part of the USA's total income. The need to control this trade has started wars. or at least caused them to go on much longer then they needed to. {see Vietnam and the golden triangle /drug trafficking }

The major countries in South America traffic in Narcotics and though they have other national products it can be easily argued that it is many countries main export. The people who rule the drug trade are so powerful that President Bush has meet many times with the leaders of several countries in South America. He did not meet with the Presidents of these countries though, instead he held a conference with the leaders of the drug cartels.
{ a simple internet search, & a little time can support this if you want to learn more }

It is currently the position of the United States Government to freeze your assets, seize your home and business even for the smallest of drug sales indictments. The reasoning being that your job/business money could/was being used to launder said drug money.

Gangs and violence is a major side effect of illegal narcotics trafficking. Gangs have now evolved into highly developed organizations that fight over the right to make salea in a given territory. Gone are the days when a blue or red rag meant a dam thing, now the tune is, don't move in on my business or it's war! { and they mean it }

Most people see the face of illegal drugs as a toothless junkie, a dirty criminal or the kid on the street corner selling a joint. When in most cases the real face of drugs is, A business man wearing a nice suit, a politician doing his job or any one of many flags raised in the name of a given country.


The trade in illicit drugs is estimated to be worth $400 billion a year, and it accounts for 8% of all international trade, according to the United Nations. In order to invest the profits of their illicit activities and avoid having their assets seized by the government, drug traffickers must transform the monetary proceeds from their criminal activity into revenue from apparently legal sources. This is known as money laundering.

In a May 1998 speech, President Clinton declared, "Up to $500 billion in criminal proceeds every single year—more than the GNP of most nations—is laundered, disguised as legitimate revenue, and much of it moves across our borders." As much as $100 billion a year in drug trafficking cash moves through the U.S. financial system, according to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). this from a CNN.

In the same year of 1998 during a Congressional hearing it was stated that the CIA Inspector General testified that there has existed an agreement between CIA and the Justice Department, wherein "during the years 1982 to 1995, the CIA did not have to report the drug trafficking by its assets to the Justice Department." So what does this say?

The trade has done nothing but increase since then, in fact President Bush on October 22, 2007 asked for 1.4 Billion Dollars to fight drug trafficking for just MEXICO. So its safe to assume that the estimate from 1998 of 100 billion a year is a VERY conservative estimate.

The amount of people killed in drug deals, not to mention accidents or overdose is extremely high. The money spent by our government to "control" these drugs is out of sight.

So the taxing of these drugs would bring VAST amounts of money back into the economy. The narcotics themselves could be controlled and made safer, ie,. controlling there content of poisons and "cutting" substances. The people who take them would then be monitored. The amount of crime would decrease in a dramatic fashion as when alcohol was legalized.

Personally I really do not see much of a bad point in the legalization, control, and taxing of illicit narcotics, do you?

...This impact goes much deeper then your children pooping pills. In so deep....

LMFAO!!!!

OK, I'm not willing to make them legal just to ease my tax burden.

LMFAO!!!!

OK, I'm not willing to make them legal just to ease my tax burden.

If you had read what I posted then you would know it is not about the money.
it's about the deaths, the violence, the corruption and the crime associated with the drugs themselves.

If you had read what I posted then you would know it is not about the money.
it's about the deaths, the violence, the corruption and the crime associated with the drugs themselves.

So if its legal, crime will go down? :rolleyes:

If you had read what I posted then you would know it is not about the money. it's about the deaths, the violence, the corruption and the crime associated with the drugs themselves.

When a nation legalizes something, it's basically saying that it approves of it's use by the people. I don't think "we, the people" want that, do you?

Baron Max

So if its legal, crime will go down?

Yep, crime will just disappear altogether. And we can save all that money on prisons ...just release the prisoners and they'll never commit another crime. Pretty damned neat, huh? :D

Baron Max

That's the basic idea. Drug dealers and gangs have so much power because the drugs are illegal. Look at the rise of gangsters like Al Capone during prohibition.

If you had read what I posted then you would know it is not about the money....

Hmm, Title of thread says different.

I'm sure he meant it's not just about the money.

That's the basic idea. Drug dealers and gangs have so much power because the drugs are illegal. Look at the rise of gangsters like Al Capone during prohibition.

And those gangsters are still around and still making tons of money! ...just with different stuff than booze.

Baron Max

Yeah, even cigarettes, and those are legal.

And those gangsters are still around and still making tons of money! ...just with different stuff than booze.

Baron Max

Yep, and by legalizing their market, those gangsters lose a lot of their power. wiki: When repeal of prohibition occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market alcohol profits in most states (states still had the right to enforce their own laws concerning alcohol consumption), because of competition with low-priced alcohol sales at legal liquor stores. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Repeal_of_Prohibi tion)

Organized crime will always have something to dig their hands in, that's true. But why give them this?

Organized crime will always have something to dig their hands in, that's true. But why give them this?

Well, geez, why don't we just work with the gansters and criminals, then give them whatever they want, then we wouldn't have to worry about anything.

Maybe we can pay the criminals not to commit crimes? Ooh, now that sounds like a lot better deal, don't it? And we'll save a ton on building and servicing prisons.

Baron Max

Well, geez, why don't we just work with the gansters and criminals, then give them whatever they want, then we wouldn't have to worry about anything.

By doing this, you take the power out of gangsters and criminals and you put it into the hands of law abiding citizens. You're taking away their market. How are you giving them what they want?

The legalization of drugs is the single absolute worst thing in the eyes of a gangster looking to maximize profits.

The legalization of drugs is the single absolute worst thing in the eyes of a gangster looking to maximize profits.

You really didn't get the ghist of my post ...so I'll repeat part of it again:

Maybe we can pay the criminals not to commit crimes? Ooh, now that sounds like a lot better deal, don't it? And we'll save a ton on building and servicing prisons.

Baron Max

even if these drugs are made legal, they will still smuggle it in, skirt the laws, up the potency of it, etc.
They will do something to make money off it, legal or not.

Maybe we can pay the criminals not to commit crimes? Ooh, now that sounds like a lot better deal, don't it? And we'll save a ton on building and servicing prisons.

If you haven't committed a crime, you're not a criminal are you? So it's a moot point. Maybe I'm still not getting the gist of what you're trying to say.

There are already incentives in place to not commit crimes, just like there are incentives in place to commit crimes. What legalizing drugs would do is remove some of the incentives that lead to crime.

even if these drugs are made legal, they will still smuggle it in, skirt the laws, up the potency of it, etc.
They will do something to make money off it, legal or not.

Of course they will, but they'll be making less money off of it because they won't have the same market. Most people buy cigarettes in the city legally even though taxes have made them about $8 a pack, the $5 dollar a pack smugglers still make profit but it's a hell of a lot less than what they'd make if cigarettes were outlawed altogether.

Apply your argument to alcohol.

Even if alcohol was made legal, they'll still smuggle it in, skirt the laws, up the potency of it, etc. They'll do something to make money off it, legal or not.

Does that sound like a reason to ban alcohol?

OK, I don't care how much money the mob makes. Why would I care?? I just don't care.
I care about how many drugs flood my town, legal or not. I want drug use to have repercussions. I want my kids to be punished for doing them.

OK, I don't care how much money the mob makes. Why would I care?? I just don't care.
I care about how many drugs flood my town, legal or not. I want drug use to have repercussions. I want my kids to be punished for doing them.

Because the money they make is what keeps them in power. You're trading a "drug free" town for empowered gangs.

You can always have age limits on purchasing drugs, just like with cigarettes and alcohol. That way your kids won't be using them until they're adults, if they listen to you that is.

EDIT: And drug use already has repercussions. Physical ones. Economic ones. If you educate your children enough about them, then what's the problem?

...If you educate your children enough about them, then what's the problem?

Because prison is a much better deterrent than 'because I said so". When it becomes legal, everything I say goes flying out the window. If its so awful, why would it be legal?

Because prison is a much better deterrent than 'because I said so". When it becomes legal, everything I say goes flying out the window. If its so awful, why would it be legal?

"Because I said so" should never be the deterrant to begin with. Education doesn't equal telling someone what not to do without telling them why they shouldn't do it.

And hey, I don't think weed's that awful. I don't think it should be illegal. I don't think E needs to be banned. Salvia (thankfully) actually IS legal. Shrooms or acid can be used very safely. etc. But look, even though I'm all for legal drugs and indulge in a couple of them every now and then, I'd never try heroin. Why? Because I read up on it, it's high potential for addiction and abuse, and decided that I'm not interested. Surely your kids could do the same?

Why not just STOP SPENDING!

"...Surely your kids could do the same?

Why?? Its legal. If its legal, then its safe to use, just like booze. Not everyone gets addicted to booze. So how does everyone not get addicted to heroin?

...what?

EDIT: That was to cosmictraveler.

Why?? Its legal. If its legal, then its safe to use, just like booze. Not everyone gets addicted to booze. So how does everyone not get addicted to heroin?

Something being legal doesn't necessarily mean it's safe to use. There are warning signs and hazard signs on most utilities that you buy aren't there? It means that they can be dangerous, but won't be if used properly. Drugs are just like that. My understanding of heroin is that it takes regular use to get addicted. So the solution would be to not be a regular user. There are lots of people who use it recreationally but sparingly and still live healthy happy lives.

(If my understanding of heroin addiction is wrong, someone who's more informed please correct me.)

...what?

EDIT: That was to cosmictraveler.



If Congress would stop spending more than it takes in it could do much

better at balancing the budget, wouldn't you think? If we would spend like

Congress we would all be bankrupt wouldn't we?

If Congress would stop spending more than it takes in it could do much

better at balancing the budget, wouldn't you think? If we would spend like

Congress we would all be bankrupt wouldn't we?

Nah, we wouldn't be bankrupt. We'd just be in complete debt to our rich neighbor. :p

But yeah, I definitely agree. Congress needs to stop being so trigger happy with the checkbook.

Check it out!

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

Check it out!

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

I wonder if, when they say each citizen's share is $30,000, they literally mean "citizen". I also wonder if that includes children.

I wonder if, when they say each citizen's share is $30,000, they literally mean "citizen". I also wonder if that includes children.

I don't know but I'd think so.

It would probably make more sense than anything else to line drug abusers up against the wall and shoot them.

Well, geez, why don't we just work with the gansters and criminals, then give them whatever they want, then we wouldn't have to worry about anything.

Maybe we can pay the criminals not to commit crimes? Ooh, now that sounds like a lot better deal, don't it? And we'll save a ton on building and servicing prisons.

Baron Max

We all ready do pay those criminals. The government that allows one dealer to function { for a % of the profit } is going on from the top to the bottom. from the local police turning a blind eye to the government agencies that tell the Air Force to bomb one cocaine field but not this one because there working with one of the dealers and it's only good business to ensure a monopoly in a given area so as to increase the profit margin.

It seems you are concentrating on the drug rather then the life style that drugs brings to our country. You are worried more that your child may try a drug { to do so they need only get into your medicine cabinet } then the fact the he/she may be effected by the violence caused by the mere presence of drug dealers in your neighborhood.

As for the dry sarcastic attempted at humor concerning that legalizing drugs would cure all crime... well what can one say to someone that uses jokes and snide remarks instead of a well thought out response?

The Whole idea of reducing crime & government spending by CONTROLLING illecit drugs was well stated and argued by MEMBER : Ashura so I don't think that needs to be gone over twice. :)

It would probably make more sense than anything else to line drug abusers up against the wall and shoot them.

The Kill em all let God sort them out approach has been suggested before, about a great many issues.

It went something like this:

First man. " lets line up all the drug dealers, prostitutes, child molesters, rapists, Terrorists, Etc.. and just kill them all.."

Second man. " the lawyers of the world would NEVER allow that."

First man. " Then shoot the Lawyers FIRST. "

Ahhh in the perfect world :)

....My understanding of heroin is that it takes regular use to get addicted. So the solution would be to not be a regular user. There are lots of people who use it recreationally but sparingly and still live healthy happy lives. ...

and that's what you think is gonna happen. So meth would be the same?

I can't say for sure, of course, exactly what's gonna happen. But I think it'd result in a better situation for everyone who we'd want it to better for. Taxpayers, lower income people who get hurt the most by our current drug laws, addicts. And it'd be worse for who we want it to hurt. The drug dealers and gangs.