Saturday, June 04, 2011

Legislation of the Day

The good news: a recently introduced, Democrat-written House bill would cut taxes.

The bad news: the bill "HR 1985, the Small Business Tax Equity Act, would allow medical marijuana dispensaries to take the full range of business expense deductions on their federal tax returns." It also would grant state-certified marijuana sellers easier access to bank loans.

Proving progressives have plenty of friends in high places.

8 comments:

OBloodyHell said...

what, if progs had THAT much pull, marijuana would be completely legal like it should be.

As a cartoon long ago said:

"Two years for a cigarette? I got 60 days for the possession of a deadly weapon."

suek said...

I have _such_ mixed feelings about drugs.

My gut feeling is that people should be allowed to pick their own poison. On the other hand, if they do so and collapse on the street, I don't think those that _don't_ should have to pick up the tab for resuscitation/rehabilitation or any other related expenses other than perhaps burial expenses. And even that should be deducted from any estate they might be lucky enough to leave.

Since it's likely to be a cold day in hell when that happens, I'm inclined to support the no drug laws. But I don't really like it either.

Carl said...

I'm kinda with Sue K. and OBH on the drug laws. But, no matter how much pro-legalization forces swear the taxpayers won't bear the burden of drug-caused health problems, I don't believe it. As someone who lives in an inner-city, I saw the effect of crack--just about everyone who used it is dead. This ruined neighborhoods for years: no one would venture onto such streets, killing commerce and property values there.

So it's not just health issues: widespread legalization might lead to severe and unpredictable societal burdens directly or indirectly caused by drugs.

Carl said...

BTW, my opposition here stems not from my posture on drug policy, but rather on the fact that medical marijuana advocates want taxpayers nationwide to pay for what may still be illegal in the taxpayer's state.

It's one thing to "legalize"--and a very different thing to demand to be subsidized.

suek said...

More on the topic of legalizing drugs.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=187631

I'd be interested in reactions, if there are any...

Carl said...

Sue: While generally not favoring current drug laws, I think that link minimizes the consequences to society of drug abuse--as you yourself mentioned. And, as a practical matter, we can't force folks to sign some sort of financial waiver if they decide, for example, to add crystal meth to their daily diet.

suek said...

So you basically saying that Libertarian instincts need to be tempered by the effects on society?

And how do we draw the line between "freedom" and social welfare? doesn't this merge into the "it's good for you" thing?

I'm sort of on the side of "do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone but yourself", but "I'm not going to pay for your stupidity". The problem is that perhaps that is inviting societal chaos. I'm not sure.

Carl said...

Sue: I could duck the question by falling back on my previous point about the issue of subsidies. Beyond that, I don't have an answer. I have both libertarian and conservative instincts. But, I live on a street that was nearly destroyed by crack--and everyone who used it is now dead. So, I'm unwilling to give all drugs a free pass on principle. And, once you admit that lines must be drawn, reasonable people can disagree on what lines and were.