Monday, January 26, 2009

Senate Dems Roll a Stinker for the Deficit

Here's to blunting the deficit. I have heard some interesting theories about how to help with the deficit. But I am deeply fascinated by this effort by Senate Democrats Martin Looney and Toni Harp to help the deficit by relaxing the laws against marijuana possession.

They assure us no one wants to decriminalize pot possession, but they would rather being caught with joint be akin to getting a speeding ticket.

Then there is this from the Courant:

Connecticut legislators also will consider a measure that would reduce the size of drug-free school zones. Under state law, any drug activity is subject to harsher criminal penalties if it takes place within 1,500 feet of a school, housing project or day-care center. Critics say such laws unfairly discriminate against residents of cities and densely populated suburbs.

Uh-huh. Naturally, Judiciary Chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor shows up in this article to put his two cents in to advocate against "wasting" the money to prosecute "low level" drug users.

Is the point here that it actually costs the government money to do their job? No kidding! But leave it to these liberal clowns to see law enforcement as something to cut. They can't cut their own taxpayer funded campaign fund when vital programs are in the red. They can't cut their own salaries while their constituents get laid off. But they see savings in loosening up the law.

Excellent plan! You know, why don't they relax the laws on assault too? That ought to further clear the court docket and save us money. Those annoying rape and pedophile prosecutions are a real money drain too!



Connecticut Man1 said...

Nope... The point is that if you want smaller government you have to cut services. I guess conservatives being in favor of smaller government would be akin to blowing smoke?

1. Pot heads are no worse - in any way - than people that drink. There are users and there are abusers of both. The hypocrisy is that drinking is legal and pot is not.

2. As long as you advocate for it being illegal you are advocating that the money spent on it goes to dealers and gangs. Some would say terrorists but I call BS on that. The largest cash crop in California? Pot. Most of it is grown in the USA. As American as apple pie.

3. Legalizing it would do more for keeping it out of the hands of minors, when they are most likely to begin a lifelong habit - thus turning back the trends in the mindless cycle of this ever-losing war on drugs.

4. Police could deal with real crimes, murder, theft, republican treason and crimes against humanity, instead of wasting their time and resources on some guy sitting in his living room that doesn't bother you. Also, prisons wouldn't be so full of kids and people with health issues, saving you even more money.

5. Tax revenues. Revenues from sales that, if you aren't smoking it, you aren't paying.

And remember... The war on drugs is just another in a long line of wars that republicans couldn't win because they don't have a clue how to fight wars. The frickin' gang that can't shoot straight.

mccommas said...

Well as much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree with 80 percent of that liberal pussy above me said.

Get caught with pot -- pay a fine. A big one --like perhaps a thousand dollars. That’s a deterrent.

These people are not violent offenders. They are basically harmless unless they drive under the influence. Besides I like pot. I haven't had any in years but...

I was never for legalization but I read the papers and the police report is all about cops chasing kids around with grass. I think they can be better spending their time.

I think they enforce the anti-pot laws because they are easy to enforce. Solving murders and burglaries on the other hand are hard.