Get Rid of ALL Vice Laws!!!

The BBQ Pit
41

Oh yeah, BTW, Stoidela, in contrast to your claim that people wouldn’t be crawling out of the woodwork to do drugs if they were legalized, one need but point to the pro-legalization Utopia: Amsterdam. A study by Robert MacCoun of the University of California, Berkeley showed that, after enforcement attempt were abandoned there in the 1970s and it was openly sold in the 1980s, marijuana use tripled.

Not to mention:

This is utter bullshit. You know what street crime is like in Amsterdam? Why do you think so many countries, not just the U.S., have criminalized drugs, and particularly hard drugs? (And if you say “drug war propaganda,” I’ll know you’re full of crap. China, the former U.S.S.R. and Singapore don’t give a rat’s ass about drug war propaganda.) You don’t suppose there are (gasp!) unacceptable social costs to legalization, do you?

This is always when I know someone’s argument is about to go awry–the implication that people who disagree with them are simply stupid.

And yet, so many societies have criminalized these drugs after observing firsthand their effects on society.

Yes, heroin is no more harmful than Coca-Cola or Captain Crunch. It’s the LAW that hurts people.

Oh, except you, the only person smart enough to see through the Goebbels-like fog, right? Puh-leeze. We can assume that most people are capable of formulating an opinion that is as informed and valid as yours, if not more so, rather than reacting in Pavlovian fashion.

If the majority of people preferred that drugs were legal, they would elect candidates that ran on pro-legalization platforms. They do not do so, ergo we can assume that legalization is not a preference or priority for most people. Do you think that drugs should be legalized against the wishes of most people? Are you ready to take responsibility for the inevitable social costs?

I’d like to see some stastical evidence for this, please.

Hmm. Records are cheap and readily available, and yet organized crime still finds it more profitable to pirate recordings to place in jukeboxes that they control rather than pay a rack jobber for them.

You know, a great many addicts eventually find it difficult to keep a job.

42

Jodih, I pay a tax on my car, but the taxes are for the registration which gives me a right to use it on public roads. I have a car I am not using that is not registered right now. The governmet does not tax me on it until i want to use it. And they can’t just come annex it. The situations are not the same as you contend.

pldennison, Again you are assuming that the only way to have a functioning society and public works is if there is a tax on property. This is not true as evidenced by states that do not have a property tax. My property tax is only about 2.7% of my income tax. when you add in the other taxes I pay, it gets smaller and smaller. I am not concerned about the amount, but rather the erosion of rights.

Lets assume that there is a way to maintain satisfactory sales revenue without a property tax. what would be the detriment to abolishing it? you seem to insinuate that if it were to be removed then private property with exclusive rights of usage would also disappear and it would become Non-excludable. I do not see this as the only logical outcome of the abolition of property tax.

I agree with you on the need for some kind of tax to maintain our society. I just do not agree that it must be a property tax.

And I really would like to see some constitutional cites regarding the matter. I am no scholar and appreciate this type of input for my own edification.

Back to the thread: The effects of the decriminalization of drugs are impossible to tell. WE could all argue whether the rates of use would go up or down till the cows come home. I started off supporting the philosophical increase in freedoms that would come with decriminalization. But alas, I must concede, these acts do not seem to fall under “rights.” It is a legislative issue and the people have spoken. In the mean time we will have to pay the $50,000 per year necesary to keep non-violent drug offenders in the clink. Plus the courts, and law enforcement, public defenders etc :::: sigh.

43

No, I’m claiming that it is an efficient source of revenue since everybody needs land for one use or another.

None, on the face of it, although sales tax is regressive and property tax is not. Generally speaking, anyway. That’s one of the best reasons for one.

No, not at all, sorry if I appear to be conflating the two. What I mean is that, because we live in a society in which property can be owned and is excludable, taxation of property is a simple way of achieiving society’s fiscal goals. And the beauty of it is, nearly everyone pays it. Even if you rent, your rent goes towards your landlord’s property taxes; and he also pays taxes on whichever property he lives on, assuming he owns it.

44

I guess more clearly put, if we didn’t live in a society with the property rights we do, there would be nobody to tax for it. You’d have to find some way of charging all people a “user fee” for the land.

In any case, I would surmise that, in political philosophy, the government in power really owns all the land within its borders, and your ownership means you have the exclusive right until you sell it (or there is a new government), but they still have the right to tax you for that privelege.

45

Thanks for the concise answer, Pldennison. I will agree that it is an efficient form of tax revenue and it does cast a wide net, and thus is relatively fair. However, I will maintain that as far as the government’s ability to annex the land is concerned, our rights are being violated. Reasonable minds can differ, and I think we will have to differ on this one.

By the way, I would vote for all taxes being included in a sales tax. After all, it is the only way to tax black market earnings.

And no, I am not a Militia nut who is planning on bombing the Whitehouse.

46

pl, I didn’t see your last post. philosophically the branched of government do not own all land. It falls under their jurisdiction for the purposes of managing what goes on and what duties they owe. But individuals still have the ultimate right of ownership. That is why there are amendments to protect individuals property against the government. only in specific circumstances can the government enter or seize my property.

The fifth amemdment states

; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the fourth states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

If the government “owned” the land, they could just come and take what is theirs, seach through it, whatever.

Now, individual state governments do have the right to create all taxes, including property taxes. But they can’t perform illegal seizures or violate my right to be secure in my property.

Hair splitting, I know. But it was an important enought distinction to be included in the constitution.

47

Jodih, I hope you read this because you said something in your last post that floored me. If I understood you correctly, you said that the gov. can sieze your house if you don’t pay your property taxes and the amount owed is equal to or nearly equal to the value of the property. Well, a couple of years ago I was 2 weeks late in paying my property taxes and I immediately got a letter from the county threatening siezure. Now, my house was worth $115,000 at the time, it was fully paid for (no mortgage, no equity loans) and my property tax bill was for $2,200. What gives?

“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

48

What gives is that your rights of ownership have been remanded to the state.

There was not even an income tax until 1913. Now, if you are late on your prop taxes, they take your house. Hell, you are probably just squandering your money on selfish things that don’t do any social good. It’s not fair. Some of your money should be given to those who need it. Does that bother you?

end rant…
Some people think that this is the way it should be. I say it is a violation of your 4th amendment rights. Not to great when it is your house the may take.

49

What gives is I was talking off the cuff, which I shouldn’t do because it makes me look like the sort of lame-o who just tosses off opinions. Bad dog! BAD DOG!! Not that I was wrong, exactly – just imprecise.

Okay, legally this is what happens. You don’t pay your property taxes. The county files a lein against the property (which is a legal declaration that you owe them X dollars); at that point, the property can’t be sold to anyone without that debt being paid out of the purchase price – which means, practically speaking, that no one will buy it. So the county files its lein, and you still don’t pay. The county then can file a suit to foreclose the lein – to essentially say, this guy owes us X dollars and you, your honor, should make him pay it. The court can then order the lein to be paid and, if the property owner can’t or won’t pay it, the property can be sold to satisfy the lein. Say you owe $20,000 in property taxes on land worth $100,000. They would sell the land, give the county $20,000 to satisfy the lein, and give $80,000 to you.

I don’t know (obviously) what happened in your case, but I’d make the following additional points: The county usually doesn’t bother to file a lein for peanuts, so to speak, but $2000 is a nice chunk of change so they might for that. If they went ahead and tried to foreclose the lein, it is unlikely the court would make you sell your house, because the amount owed is so small compared to the value of the property. In such cases, the courts often decide that it is inequitable (not fair) to foreclose the lein and force the sale. But the judge will ask you why you haven’t paid your taxes and she or he will order you to pay them ASAP. If you don’t, the county can come back and say “he still won’t pay us; let us sell the land” and the judge might then allow it to do so. Property Law 101 (boring as hell, isn’t it?) It’s also not my area of expertise, so this thumbnail explanation might not be 100% accurate in all respects.

THOR – I’m not arguing with you, but I thought you might be interested to know that in my state (Montana) the people (through the legislature) have voted down a sales tax in every single one of the last 10 legislative sessions. Right or wrong, they obviously don’t believe that’s a better or more equitable way to raise revenues than through property taxes. Montana has one of the highest property tax rates in the country, BTW, but they still won’t pass a sales tax.

50

Jodih, I thought that Montana had sales, but no property tax. I thought that that was why some of the militia groups ended up there.

And that is what I get for talking off the cuff.

51

Stoidela, I got to thiniking last night about your contention that drugs should all be legal because they affect nobody but the person taking them. You also argue, illogically, that, hey booze and tobacco are legal, so everything else should be, too.

I’ll take it as a given that human beings are prone to using mood-altering substances. It’s part of our nature.

Now, in deciding to make any given activity or substance legal, society as a whole must decide whether the social benefits outweigh the social costs. Society has decided that there is a social benefit to having alcohol and tobacco legal and readily available. And what are the social costs?

Alcohol:

–is a contributing factor in tens of thousands of traffic accidents, injuries and fatalities each year. Beyond the obvious costs to the injured and the families of the deceased, this keeps medical, property and automotive insurance rates higher than they might be.

–is a contributor to countless acts of violent behavior. And this is a depressant, unlike heroin.

–is a major contributor to acts of domestic violence.

–alcoholism can destroy marriages, careers and lives, and often does.

Tobacco:

–is a contributing factor in lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, mouth cancer, throat cancer, and a number of other conditions.

–drains money from the Treasury in the form of crop subsidies and crop insurance.

–is a major cause of social strife between smokers and nonsmokers.

Despite all this, these are kept legal. Do you really think it’s smart to add narcotics into the mix? Are you really naive enough to think there are no social costs?

52

Jodih,
Thanks for taking the time to expalin. In my case, things never went further than the initial letter. I had been out of the country for several months and thought I had covered all the bills, but forgot the property tax would be coming due. I just paid it when I got home.

“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization

53

there are costs to legalizing narcotics. But there are also costs to keeping it illegal. the debate seems to have focused on whether the costs of keeping it legal are worth it.

In the case of alcohol, we had a great experiment on the costs of it being legal vs. illegal.

costs of illegal narcotics:
–encarceration $50k per year per person
–increased law enforcement, the DEA, etc
–the violence and organized crime the grows around black market activities
–fathers who can’t support their children while in jail
— lost tax revenue

And let’s face it, drug use has not disappeared. Drugs are readily available.

Interestingly, tobacco use has decreased greatly without being criminalized. And that is one addictive drug.

54

Oh, they are not either. Do you know anyone from whom you can readily buy crack, pot, LSD, heroin, coke, or crystal meth? I sure don’t, and I bet most people don’t. Compare that to beer and cigarettes, both of which you can buy pretty much 10 minutes from wherever you are standing right now.

55

THOR – Nope. Montana has high property taxes, but no sales tax. And everyone bitches about the property taxes, but they won’t pass a sales tax.

As to why the Freemen are here as opposed to some other places, I think it’s because people mind their own business, mostly, and don’t give a damn what the neighbors believe so long as they keep the fence fixed. And it’s a big state with a lot of country where you can get lost or set up housekeeping and feel like you’re not really in the evil civilized world anymore. But it’s not because the tax system is favorable; I don’t think they care about that, since they don’t pay them anyway.

56

pld, I have the feeling that you and I are just not going to be able to agree on anything.

Back when I did use illegal drugs, I could get anything and I could usually have it delivered. I couldn’t get a joint now if I wanted to, but when you are usiong it you set up networks that keep you supplied. Judging by the amount of drugs consumed in the US, I would imagine that teh supply network is doing pretty well.

57

pldennison asks: “Do you know anyone from whom you can readily buy crack, pot, LSD, heroin, coke, or crystal meth?”

Personally, I’m getting tired of making myself scarce when the pot comes out. Buy it? I’ve had people GIVE me pot that I’ve had to throw away. Heroin, coke and crack have appeared when I’ve least expected them. The stuff is EVERYWHERE.

And, frankly, if Bourbon were illegal, I’d think again before I threw away that pot.

58

pldennison asks: “Do you know anyone from whom you can readily buy crack, pot, LSD, heroin, coke, or crystal meth?”

Personally, I’m getting tired of making myself scarce when the pot comes out. Buy it? I’ve had people GIVE me pot that I’ve had to throw away. Heroin, coke and crack have appeared when I’ve least expected them. The stuff is EVERYWHERE.

And, frankly, if Bourbon were illegal, I’d think again before I threw away that pot.

59

[[--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I dont’ know if it is Denmark, Swedne, the Netherlands, or some other country, but somewhere in Europe they are sanely and compassionately actually PROVIDING heroin to addicts. The result? Many of them are not only NOT committing crime and living on the street, they are actually productive members of society barely distinguishable from anyone else.

Can you please provide a cite for this? Have you ever seen or known a heroin addict?]] PLD
I dunno about the No. Europe thing, but I have known some heroin addicts. Certainly never made me interested in getting involved with that shit, but you’d be amazed at how many are able to lead a relatively normal life.

60

[[I see that it is your opinion that the governmnet owns it anyway and can take it at will. I would really like to see some quotes from the Constitution that support the logic underlying this conjecture. ]] Thor
That’s a bit strong (and doubtless distorts Phil’s position), but it is an old common law tradition that you don’t really “own” property, you just sort of “hold it for the king” (i.e., the government).