Skip to content

Here are some things to cut from federal spending

So, if we really want to cut out unnecessary spending to reduce the deficit, here are a few no-brainers:

Share

6 Comments

  1. C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

    89% of people jailed for possession of pot only had enough for personal use. Stop that insanity and you will save a fortune.

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 11:22 am | Permalink
  2. Iron Knee wrote:

    Yeah, good point. Legalizing marijuana and getting all those people out of jail would save a TON of money.

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Permalink
  3. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I agree, however most 1st offense personal use (under 1 oz) possessions never do jail time, at least in my state. Most 2nd or 3rd for that matter. It is a waste of time for the officers, prosecuters, DOCs and Prob/Parole officials to go after someone for a 1 yr sentence that almost always gets reduced to 30 days with 30 days suspended. The federal task force I work with just ignores small weed amounts because it’s too much paperwork for essentially nothing.
    Cutting the cost of arrest and prosecution is only part of it, getting the revenue from taxation would makes it a double winner.
    Suprisingly, alot of law enforcement are actually leaning more towards support of legalization (I guess similarly like the shift towards acceptance of gay marriage).

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
  4. ebdoug wrote:

    Plus everyone who grows a corn field can grow marijuana. Less farm subsidies. I think if we grow marijuana at home, no one would be interested in getting it from Mexico. The side effects from marijuana are no where near what they are from alcohol or cigarettes. Many studies, don’t happen to have one on hand. Plus while I would never smoke, I love the smell.
    New York is working on doing away with the Nelson Rockerfeller laws.

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Permalink
  5. Jason Ray wrote:

    It’s too bad that “no brainer” does not equal “not controversial”. I would have thought that at least #4 was not controversial, but the House proved me wrong :-)

    Wednesday, March 16, 2011 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
  6. Bert wrote:

    And then you could tax it, too.

    win-win-win!

    Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink