2 simple new laws that would drasticly cut crime and reduce taxes

1. Establish a "Free Drug Zone". Fence in a couple vacant public housing sites. Offer unlimited free drugs to anyone who wants to move into the zone. Provide medical care and basic food. One condition - mandatory sterilization upon entry.

This is natural selection at it's best. We are being "nice" to the druggies, cutting down on illegal drug sales and reducing the number of drug dependent babies.

2. Legalize all drugs and tax them highly so the rich druggies get to pay for the Free Drug Zones. The jail will be nearly empty in 10 years when all the felons who committed crimes to support their habits are free and the number of illegal drug dealers is reduced.

Which criminals are you executing? Jay walkers? Speeders? People who cheat on their taxes?And how many innocent people are you willling to kill? Look up the innocence project for a zillion examples of people who were convicted for crimes they didn\'t commit. And all of them are freed by DNA evidence. You have to image their are at least as many where DNA evidence can\'t be used.

simple wrote:

Executing criminals alone would improve all the other problems. You compare criminals with the sick/old/uneducated/unemployed, that is so offensive. How about a real argument to a policy of executing criminals?

Malpractice is like 2% of health care costs which is why the states that have done tort reform haven\'t seen a reduction in premiums. But don\'t let facts ruin your argument. And how many people do you think would become doctors if they couldn\'t get insurance? Not many people have the stomach to live with that level of risk.Should the lack of liability apply to every other profession or are doctors special?

Siberian Tiger wrote:

Get rid of the ability for anyone to sue a doctor for malpractice. Doctors take out millions of dollars in insurance to make sure if they make a mistake, they have the money to pay. Health care costs are much higher because of this. Only in extreme cases should there be the ability to sue, and that should come directly out of the doctor\'s pocket.

who cares if malpractice insurance is 2% of all health care costs? talk about an irrelevant stat. malpractice insurance is a lot more than 2% of a doctor's revenue and costs and that is what matters.

I've got an idea, why don't we impose the same draconian policies on private sector workers so that they stop wasting our money and raising the costs of everything we pay for? Why deal with 15% of the economy when we can go for 100%?

asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

Which criminals are you executing? Jay walkers? Speeders? People who cheat on their taxes?

I am in favor of executing white collar criminals like those in charge on Enron, WorldCom, Bear Stearns, Bernie Madoff and the like.

ken bob wrote:

too bad we're 13 trillion in debt and govt assistance accounts for only about 10 billion a year. (guesstimate on that).

"drasticly" haha

If you can't be bothered to look up the correct number and prefer to pull random numbers out of your butt then do the rest of the world a favor and shut the hell up.

Why is that what matters? I am paying for health care costs not doctors salaries. Reducing malpractice to zero will not reduce my costs.And what do you think that number is. The one I am familiar with (internist in CA) is less than 2% ( ~7k for malpractice doctor making just under 200k and the practices bills out about 2x of that salary(overhead is a bitch). The one big exception is OBYGN in certain states (FL, NV and MI) where 200k premiums are not unusual. That is a state issue not a national one.

eb white wrote:

who cares if malpractice insurance is 2% of all health care costs? talk about an irrelevant stat. malpractice insurance is a lot more than 2% of a doctor's revenue and costs and that is what matters.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

Which criminals are you executing? Jay walkers? Speeders? People who cheat on their taxes?

I am in favor of executing white collar criminals like those in charge on Enron, WorldCom, Bear Stearns, Bernie Madoff and the like.

I am in favor of executing everyone in the world except for me and about 20 or so major babes.

The innocence project lists 258 cases, from the past 30+ years, and of course there are more. There's 2.4 million people in US prisons right now, over the last 30 years, a lot more. So you're talking 258 out of millions. And death sentences it was 13 out of millions. Technology should further improve these numbers, which makes an even better case for executing criminals.

The real question is how many innocent people is it acceptable for criminals to murder, rape, maim, rob, etc.?