SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Bill who wrote (402344)1/7/2011 10:44:05 PM
From: Gersh Avery4 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) of 793958
 
About 70% of the DEA budget is for fighting marijuana.

When change takes place on the federal level, changes will also take place at state levels.

Most small marijuana crimes are prosecuted there. It's not just the federal budget that would benefit. States would also benefit.
Perhaps even more than the federal government budget.

These are times where money MUST be cut from someplace. In fact, everyplace it can be.

By changing only the marijuana part, the national forests are no longer at risk from drug activity. There is no other drug that requires real estate for production. Others are much more highly concentrated before they hit our boarders.

Health care cost savings. People are going to consume mind altering substances. We haven't been able to stop it by putting people in jail for any of them. Major health care savings would result from such people having access to the least damaging of these substances. Including alcohol. Whatever these people choose to do will cost our money to treat at the end. It is logical to direct them toward the least expensive substance.

And about a thousand citizens and officers per year that don't get shot and killed over a plant.

How do you wish to count the cost??? And what could be saved?
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext