Originally Posted by danielpalos

Since our elected representatives to federal government have no judicial oversight on what they write on blank pieces of paper, issues of reserved rights and federal authority have to be resolved by the judicature of the United States.

In principle, any state can nullify federal authority if powers are not expressly delegated by our federal Constitution; and, should be assumed reserved to the States. It could be considered a States' right.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Ending the Drug War would be more cost effective. It could generate revenue that can defray public sector costs and lower our tax burden.

Originally Posted by Lettuce Head

I'm not up on all the tax structures between the States and the Fed. I did hear on the news today that twice as much stimulus money is going to counties that voted for Obama than for McCain.

But check this out. From The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution|Tenth Amendment Center



And so it begins. This will more than likely end up in the Federal Supreme Court, who being federal itself, might see need to protect its own.

Originally Posted by Salivating Dog

How many government jobs would be destroyed by that?

How would you replace them?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

A goal would be to have zero percent official unemployment as a statist form of full employment of resources.

Since legalizing recreational drugs would generate revenue, it could defray the cost of the public sector. There is no reason why anyone would not be able to apply for unemployment compensation, at-will. As a form of eliminating official poverty through recourse to an income, simulating zero percent unemployment would ensure better employment of resources in the market for labor. Many public sector employees could be transferred to where they are needed most. The rest could simply opt to be couch potatoes for a while to get over their trauma of having been forced by life to provide labor input in a more developed, first world economy (in an manner similar to any thirdworlder in a less well developed economy). After that, they could go to "school, learn a vocation, the arts, or pursue Happiness as stated in our glorious and patriotic, and supreme code law of the land and social contract." LOL!!!!

Since the goal of such a public policy is full employment of resources with zero percent official poverty, would it really matter what any given potential labor market participant does, if they are not in "official poverty"? This can be considered a cure for bleeding heart liberalism. As a moral and ethic, we can stop when no individual market participant can claim official poverty in our political-economy. And, it conforms to our Ninth Amendment.

As an opportunity cost, it can provide a measure of fiscal responsibility since less money will be available for public policies that deny and disparage individual liberty.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

How did you reach your red herring conclusion from what I wrote?

Lets just say I have been in politics too long.

If drugs are legalized, they will be well regulated and taxed, like it says in our Constitution. Perhaps. So if you can't beat'em join'em huh? Government selling drugs for money? Do you mind your daughter shooting herion?

Unemployment compensation, at-will, complies with at-will employment doctrine and state at-will employment laws. People who prefer to do drugs would not feel compelled to obtain employment through less moral and less ethical means. The general welfare.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Since our elected representatives to federal government have no judicial oversight on what they write on blank pieces of paper, issues of reserved rights and federal authority have to be resolved by the judicature of the United States.

In principle, any state can nullify federal authority if powers are not expressly delegated by our federal Constitution; and, should be assumed reserved to the States. It could be considered a States' right.