The implications of Legalizing a prohibited item Research Paper

The implications of Legalizing a prohibited item - Research Paper Example They also argue that the legalization would earn the government more income through taxation. They also believe that the legalization will reduce the government’s expenditure on enforcing the prohibition. This paper aims at discussing the economic impacts on the legalization of the use of marijuana. Source of Revenue through Taxation The legalization of the use of marijuana will highly affect the mode of pricing. When the use of a substance is illegal, the price is always high. This is because of the risk involving the marijuana dealers. However, high taxation by the government can make the prices high again. Economists argue that high taxation might lead to the emergence of black market trade. Considering this, it would be advisable to keep taxes minimal in order to reduce the possibilities of emergence of black markets. A good example is the effect of high prices of heroin in Norway where the level of consumption decreased with the increase in the prices. One would argue tha t the volume of consumption by addicts is likely not to change with an increase in price (Morgan 2011). Some economists would disagree with this since studies on consumption of substances like alcohol and cigarettes show that heavy users responded highly to prices as compared to the other users. This will mean that the only means to get the maximum income from the legalization of marijuana is minimizing the taxation (see Figure 1). This will increase the volume of marijuana consumption, which will mean a high total tax collection. The figure illustrates the relationship between the price of marijuana and its consumption. Figure 1. Marijuana price-demand curve. (blogspot.com) Reduction of Government Expenditure on Marijuana Use Regulation The legalization of the consumption of marijuana will also reduce the government expenditure on the regulation of its use. This will be possible through saving of money that the government spends on marijuana arrests. Records in the United States of America show that there is a very high rate of both marijuana possession and trafficking arrests (Brux 2011). With the legalization of marijuana, the resources allocated for these kinds of arrests can go to another law enforcement sector. The resources spent on judicial processes involving marijuana possessors and traffickers could be saved for other purposes. Records have it that more than 3% of judicial trials in the United States of America involve the marijuana possessors. The percentage of resources spent on such activities can go to other activities. In the United States of America, the number of drug laws criminals in the correctional facilities is more than offenders of the other laws (Clements & Zhao 2009). For instance, in the year 2011, the total number of sentenced was 197050, with 94600 of those were sentenced in drug related trials. The closest to it were the violent offences, which had 14900 inmates. With the legalization of the consumption of marijuana, the governme nt will save the economic resources used for the correction of drug offenders. This money can take care of other economic needs of the country. The legalization of marijuana will also reduce the number of criminal activities involved with its peddling. Since the drug will be legal, more socially decent organization will venture into the marijuana supplying business. Occurrences like this will reduce the necessity of criminal

Answsering law quesiton Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Answsering law quesiton - Essay Example Jaime owed Simon and Davina a duty of care, being the owner of a restaurant which serves food to the public for a fee. Hence, he has the duty and obligation to see to it that clients are served well because he is engaged in the food business, and attached to this is the quality of service to his clients. Based on the facts of the case, there is clearly a breach of duty on the part of Jaime, the moment he forget to inform the chef that Simon and his guest only requested for vegetarian dishes. It was due to the fact that there were several guests that same night that kept him pre-occupied that he totally forgot to inform the chef of Simon’s request. As a restaurant owner, he owed a duty of care to all the clients and guests who enter and dine in his restaurant. In the case at bar, the fact that Simon informed Jaime only to serve them vegetarian dishes is an indication that Simon has already foreseen the damage or harm that will be inflicted upon Davina in case a different food, and not vegetarian dishes will be served to her. This act done by Simon in order to protect Davina is also known as the ‘neighbor principle’. He took the necessary steps to exert reasonable amount of care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure his guest, Davina. It is thereof without a doubt that a duty of care was expected of Jaime to Simon and Lavina There is also a proximity between the parties, as Jaime is the seller and Lavina and Simon are the buyers of his services. Under the law, is it fair, just and reasonable in all the circumstances to impose a duty of care in the case of Jamie. Here, Jamie is liable for the tort of negligence due to his failure to exercise reasonable care which caused a damage to Davina. His failure to inform the chef that only vegetarian dishes should be served is tantamount to negligence or omission on the part of Jamie. Therefore, he is liable to pay consequential damages to Davina because th ere is a strong connection between the cause of his failure to take reasonable care and that damages that Davina has suffered. Verily, there is a clear showing that Davina would not have been injured â€Å" but for† the Jamie’s act or omission. Hence, Davina entitled to an award of consequential damage because aside from the violent illnsess, she also suffered from consequential economic loss when she cancelled a photo shoot costs of the damage for a beauty campaign, which could have been an opportunity for her to receive economic gain. 2.) Jamie can raise the defense of contributory negligence on the part of Davina. This means that any award of damages may be reduced to the extent that the Davina, the claimant was to blame for the injury or loss inflicted to herslf. It is entirely Davina’s fault if she had too many glasses of champagne prior to her meeting with Simon and totally forgot to inform him about her allergic food reaction. This act shall hold her liab le for contributory negligence. The fault shall be shared by Jamie and Davina. There was also a mistake committed by Davina by coming to the restaurant in a sober mood, and totally disregarding to report to Simon about the allergic food reaction that she possesses. This act redounds to inaction, omission and oversight on the part of Divina. The Law Reform Act 1945(Contributory Negligence) provides for apportionment of blame between the