Quote Originally Posted by rightwinger
I am not certain what you mean by Tancredo backing down on his stance on legalization? My thread on this board--Tancredo-Hickenlooper-Maes Debate on Marijuana makes it very clear where he stands on this issue. Under this thread and article you will note that while he was a congressman in this state he in 2006 voted against using tax dollars for the DEA to raid people in medical marijuana states--LONG before Obama did.

There is no doubt that California is going to legalize it--and we know already that legalization is going to be on our ballot in 2012--just two short years from now.

It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.. And the only person that would be is Tom Tancredo. Yes an ultra-conservative--and this for you liberals and democrats on this board--need to understand that this is where (the ultra conservative) meet with the liberal.
I know what Tancredo has said on this issue in the past, hence my disappointment when I saw him say last night, that the issue should be debated. I was also disappointed that he didn't take this bull by the horns and just denounce a)prohibition (I guess in the tv replay I saw, they must have omitted some of his comments you reference - or he said those in another debate?) and b) the other candidates who are backwards on this issue.

Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron, among others who tend to study all sides of this issue (unlike politicians), says all drugs should be legalized "Pot, cocaine, LSD, crystal-meth --- you name it." I personally hate those drugs but as a true fiscal free-market conservative, I understand how we would save tens of billions of $ every YEAR! in stupid enforcement of prohibition. Miron has the figure @ $41.3 billion. "Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government," Miron claims in a recent Cato Institute report he co-authored.

"The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs."

But won't we become a nation of drug addicts?

No, says Miron. Walk down any city street and you can already buy legal drugs in multiple establishments: Caffeine at Starbucks, nicotine at the supermarket, alcohol at bars and restaurants. And we're not ALL addicted to all of these drugs.

Our current drug policy doesn't work, Miron observes. Despite ~$40 billion spent on enforcement and prosecution, drug use is still widespread. Meanwhile, because the products are illegal, they're dangerous, low-quality, and unregulated, and they generate zero tax revenue.

Legalizing drugs would solve those problems, Miron says. It would help close the budget deficit. And it would eliminate a bizarre double standard, in which Americans are encouraged to drink and smoke themselves to death -- while guzzling addictive coffee and tea -- but become criminals if they dare to get stoned.

Cannabis should at least be a no-brainer to become legal and to become an asset vs. a liability in our out of control government spending, specifically in this sector. Yes, I agree w/ you RightWinger. It would be nice if we had a governor in office that agreed with legalization.....actually we can't afford not to. Time is money and politicians are killing us by dragging their feet on not stopping waste and taking too long to liberate what should have never been prohibited in the first place.