.
USA v. $124,700 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is not exactly new, but it is highly offensive none-the-less. That a subjective measure such as "preponderance" can justify the taking of substantial valuables absent actual evidence of wrongdoing, and in the face of plausible explanations to the contrary, is disgusting.
I contemptuously dissent. This is the sort of thing that creates scofflaws.
Here is the decision straight from the Court.
The War on Some Drugs is far more expensive than we think.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Unitarian Office for Advocacy in Washinton states that the War on Drugscosts the taxpayers $40 billion annually. This cost should be interpreted in terms of what else we could do with the money. We should also recognize that it increases the cost of the drugs to the users, probably by much more than that amount. The users are thereby motivated to steal for a living rather than work a decent job. The loss of their productivity is another drain on the economy.
Likewise, the excess requirement for security comes out of our general welfare. My sister-in-law spends most of her time tracking down theft and embezzlement in her company. She says that in 90% of the cases, the offenders are heavy drug users. So, they are forced to do random drug tests on their employees, which cost a lot of money as well. Border security is another big problem. How much do drugs add to that problem?
The thing that worries me is that so much of our economy is connected to either drugs or the war on drugs, that we are all addicted in a way. What will happen if we go cold turkey?
Post a Comment