Legalized Marijuana and the Crime Question

[Dos Equis]

A small sum?  Yes.

Meaningless?  No, I disagree.  Considering how many states are running a deficit, it's not meaningless.

What it means, if nothing else, is that legalized MJ is a gov't money-maker that's being missed out on in states where it's not being taxed. 

Because, let's face it, whether it's legal or not, people are spending a lot of money on weed.   

I disagree.  It doesn't even cover the salaries of all the people involved in regulating the industry.  It's actually costing the government (and the taxpayers) money. 

[RRKore]

I disagree.  It doesn't even cover the salaries of all the people involved in regulating the industry.  It's actually costing the government (and the taxpayers) money. 

It doesn't cover 3 days' worth of their salaries?  (How many such folks are there?  How much do they make?  How do I apply?)

Source?

[Dos Equis]

It doesn't cover 3 days' worth of their salaries?  (How many such folks are there?  How much do they make?  How do I apply?)

Source?

Seriously?  Three days worth of salaries?  Good grief.  You have to look at the annual total cost of employees involved in the regulation of the industry.  That includes the tax office, law enforcement, etc.  Even if you only looked at three days worth of costs (not just salaries), it's certainly more than $150k. 

And don't ask me for a link.  Go do your own homework.  You need the learning experience. 

[RRKore]

Seriously?  Three days worth of salaries?  Good grief.  You have to look at the annual total cost of employees involved in the regulation of the industry.  That includes the tax office, law enforcement, etc.  Even if you only looked at three days worth of costs (not just salaries), it's certainly more than $150k. 

And don't ask me for a link.  Go do your own homework.  You need the learning experience. 

3 days' worth of costs, then?  How would you even be able to figure out what that is?

And law enforcement COSTS?   WTF are you talking about?  Don't you think you could reasonably subtract a huge freaking number from that since you're no longer hassling recreational smokers? 

You're not a dummy but your posts lack some when you make them too fast, I think.

[Dos Equis]

3 days' worth of costs, then?  How would you even be able to figure out what that is?

And law enforcement COSTS?   WTF are you talking about?  Don't you think you could reasonably subtract a huge freaking number from that since you're no longer hassling recreational smokers? 

You're not a dummy but your posts lack some when you make them too fast, I think.

lol.  Of all people.  lol.  You say some of the most absurd or incredibly uniformed things on this board. 

But I digress.  Like I said, if you want to know the numbers, do your own research. 

In terms of law enforcement costs, who the heck do you think is regulating the industry?  What happens when a business doesn't pay the taxes it owes?  What happens when someone doesn't have a properly regulated business? 

How old are you?  Do you have any experience in the real world? 

[RRKore]

lol.  Of all people.  lol.  You say some of the most absurd or incredibly uniformed things on this board. 

But I digress.  Like I said, if you want to know the numbers, do your own research. 

In terms of law enforcement costs, who the heck do you think is regulating the industry?  What happens when a business doesn't pay the taxes it owes?  What happens when someone doesn't have a properly regulated business? 

How old are you?  Do you have any experience in the real world? 

lol.  Which uniform do my absurd comments wear?  

(Hate to say I told ya so but I'm thinking that your typo has something to do with you making comments a little too quickly, lol.)

Yeah, I know I risk not getting any straight answers out of you since I poked a little fun at you but on the off chance that you're not in a sensitive mood tonight I'll try to engage you anyway:

Am I maybe misunderstanding you here?  Are you really saying that you think that MJ being legalized in Washington state is going to cost the taxpayers more than it will earn for them (via taxes)?

Just in terms of legal system expenditures it seems like the gov't should be coming out ahead since it will no longer be spending the money to prosecute most folks who use marijuana, right?

From your questions about expenses related to having folks make sure that folks in the new MJ biz follow the licensing and tax laws, I think you're overestimating those expenses.  If you aren't, and legalizing MJ in Washington IS costing the gov't more money than it earns, that seems like it'd be fairly big news and would be an easy thing for you to find a supporting link for, wouldn't it?  

Now, I do hear what you're saying about, "If you want to know the numbers, don't bug me about it" but asking for a supporting link to back up a counter-intuitive claim doesn't seem unreasonable and is something that you frequently do yourself.

[Dos Equis]

lol.  Which uniform do my absurd comments wear?  

(Hate to say I told ya so but I'm thinking that your typo has something to do with you making comments a little too quickly, lol.)

Yeah, I know I risk not getting any straight answers out of you since I poked a little fun at you but on the off chance that you're not in a sensitive mood tonight I'll try to engage you anyway:

Am I maybe misunderstanding you here?  Are you really saying that you think that MJ being legalized in Washington state is going to cost the taxpayers more than it will earn for them (via taxes)?

Just in terms of legal system expenditures it seems like the gov't should be coming out ahead since it will no longer be spending the money to prosecute most folks who use marijuana, right?

From your questions about expenses related to having folks make sure that folks in the new MJ biz follow the licensing and tax laws, I think you're overestimating those expenses.  If you aren't, and legalizing MJ in Washington IS costing the gov't more money than it earns, that seems like it'd be fairly big news and would be an easy thing for you to find a supporting link for, wouldn't it?  

Now, I do hear what you're saying about, "If you want to know the numbers, don't bug me about it" but asking for a supporting link to back up a counter-intuitive claim doesn't seem unreasonable and is something that you frequently do yourself.

You just cannot help yourself can you?  I'm starting to think you might be a 240 clone, just constantly making stuff up. 

You posted an article touting Washington "raking in" $150k in taxes in a few days.  I pointed out how that amount is meaningless.  I didn't say anything about what will happen longterm.  No one knows, because the numbers are not in. 

So try and focus:  the fact $150k in GET was raised in a  few days is insignificant.  That's the point. 

[whork]

lol.  Of all people.  lol.  You say some of the most absurd or incredibly uniformed things on this board. 

But I digress.  Like I said, if you want to know the numbers, do your own research. 

In terms of law enforcement costs, who the heck do you think is regulating the industry?  What happens when a business doesn't pay the taxes it owes?  What happens when someone doesn't have a properly regulated business? 

How old are you?  Do you have any experience in the real world? 

Maybe i read it wrong but are you saying that it costs more money and manpower to regulate the weed-industry now than when it was fully illegal 

[Dos Equis]

Maybe i read it wrong but are you saying that it costs more money and manpower to regulate the weed-industry now than when it was fully illegal 

You read it wrong.  We are talking about a few days of GET.  The costs regulating the industry dwarf a few days of GET (unless the GET is astronomical). 

[RRKore]

You just cannot help yourself can you?  I'm starting to think you might be a 240 clone, just constantly making stuff up. 

You posted an article touting Washington "raking in" $150k in taxes in a few days.  I pointed out how that amount is meaningless.  I didn't say anything about what will happen longterm.  No one knows, because the numbers are not in. 

So try and focus:  the fact $150k in GET was raised in a  few days is insignificant.  That's the point. 

Ah, OK.  Well ninja, that's why I asked.  Not sure why that gets your panties in such a twist.

Still not sure what you were on about with your comment about the 3 days' worth of excise taxes not paying the salaries of the regulators.  (Because to make your comment meaningful, you need to be talking about just 3 days' worth of the salaries.)  Whateva, though.

[OzmO]

lol

Got stuck at the Denver Airport yesterday in B terminal and smelt cannabis several times. 

[Dos Equis]

lol

Got stuck at the Denver Airport yesterday in B terminal and smelt cannabis several times. 

Did you inhale?   

[OzmO]

Lol.  Had too. 

[RRKore]

Lol.  Had too. 

What I hate is when you can tell it's really good shit.

OTH, my city has 2 Walmarts and you can always smelly shitty mexican brown weed in the parking lot of the ghetto walmart at night.

[OzmO]

What I hate is when you can tell it's really good shit.

OTH, my city has 2 Walmarts and you can always smelly shitty mexican brown weed in the parking lot of the ghetto walmart at night.

Haven't seen shifty Mexican brown weed in a long time.   You are in so-cal right?

[Dos Equis]

Should marijuana use be legal?

Posted by
CNN Political Unit

Washington (CNN) – Around half the public says that marijuana use should be legal, according to recent national polling.

Forty-eight percent of those questioned in a CBS News survey in early May said that the use of marijuana should be legal, with 47% disagreeing. The poll suggested partisan, gender and generational divides, with a majority of men, younger Americans, Democrats and independents saying recreational pot should be legal. Women, those 45 and older, as well as Republicans, disagree.

An ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in early January also indicated that Americans were divided on the issue.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in February and a CNN/ORC International poll conducted in early January both indicated a slight majority supported legalizing marijuana use. Fifty-four percent of those questioned in the Pew poll, and 55% of those sampled in the CNN poll supported legalizing marijuana.

According to the CNN poll and numbers from General Social Survey polling, support for legalizing marijuana has steadily soared over the past quarter century – from 16% in 1987 to 26% in 1996, 34% in 2002, and 43% two years ago.

Attitudes have dramatically changed

Why has support for legalizing marijuana tripled since the 1970s and 1980s?

"Attitudes toward the effects of marijuana and whether it is morally wrong to smoke pot have changed dramatically over time," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That also means that marijuana use is just not all that important to Americans any longer."

In 1972, about a year after President Richard Nixon declared drugs "public enemy Number One," 65% said the use of marijuana was a very serious problem for the United States. Now that is down to 19%, according to the CNN survey.

The number who said marijuana is a gateway drug (47%), is down 23 points since 1972. The number who said marijuana is addictive (50%), is down 10 points. And the number who said marijuana is physically harmful (43%) is down 23 points.

"Clearly there are some reservations about marijuana, but not the widespread fear that existed during the original War on Drugs in the 1970s," added Holland.

The biggest change indicated by the poll reflected the number of people who said smoking pot is morally wrong. In 1987, 70% said it was, making it a sin in the minds of more Americans than abortion or pornography.

Now, that number has been halved – just 35% today said smoking marijuana is morally wrong.

Widespread agreement that it is not morally wrong may be one of the bigger drivers of the pro-legalization movement.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/28/should-marijuana-use-be-legal/

[Dos Equis]

Bill Kristol: Legalizing Pot Is 'Playing With Our Kids' Futures'
Thursday, 31 Jul 2014
By Bill Hoffmann

Continued legalization of marijuana across the United States would be a disaster for the nation, Bill Kristol, founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and an ABC News political commentator, told Newsmax TV.

"It's really irresponsible the attitude people have taken towards this, that it's a chic thing … to say we've got to decriminalize some of these drugs,'' Kristol said Wednesday on Newsmax's "The Steve Malzberg Show.

"But it's playing with our kids' futures, really.''

Story continues below video.

Kristol said he served as chief of staff to Secretary of Education William Bennett during the Reagan administration, when Washington launched its ambitious crusade against drugs.

"You looked at the damages being done by the drug epidemic then, and there'll be more drug use if it's legal and if it's cheap. So yeah, I'm very concerned about what's happening.''

Thus far, Colorado and Washington, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and Maryland passed a law decriminalizing possession of 10 grams or less. Maryland, New York and Minnesota have also passed legislation for the use of medical pot.

Kristol also weighed in on President Barack Obama's use of executive power and the recent warnings by Democrats that the GOP wants to impeach the commander-in-chief.

"I’m not for impeaching him, no one really is, I guess, at this point,'' Kristol said.

"The conventional wisdom is … it would be an utter political disaster, a horrible mistake."

Kristol said he was surprised that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was one of 11 Republicans who voted along with Democrats in the Senate to keep the president's request for $3.7 billion to help ease the U.S.-Mexico border crisis.

"I would have voted on the other way on that…. Getting this president $3 billion with no strings, basically no legal changes … that doesn't sit well with me,'' he said.

"It's not that we're not spending enough money that's causing this to happen right? So it's crazy for Republicans to go along with that Democratic narrative.''

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/marijuana-legal/2014/07/30/id/585901#ixzz395Ef7fQL

[Necrosis]

Bill Kristol: Legalizing Pot Is 'Playing With Our Kids' Futures'
Thursday, 31 Jul 2014
By Bill Hoffmann

Continued legalization of marijuana across the United States would be a disaster for the nation, Bill Kristol, founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and an ABC News political commentator, told Newsmax TV.

"It's really irresponsible the attitude people have taken towards this, that it's a chic thing … to say we've got to decriminalize some of these drugs,'' Kristol said Wednesday on Newsmax's "The Steve Malzberg Show.

"But it's playing with our kids' futures, really.''

Story continues below video.

Kristol said he served as chief of staff to Secretary of Education William Bennett during the Reagan administration, when Washington launched its ambitious crusade against drugs.

"You looked at the damages being done by the drug epidemic then, and there'll be more drug use if it's legal and if it's cheap. So yeah, I'm very concerned about what's happening.''

Thus far, Colorado and Washington, have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and Maryland passed a law decriminalizing possession of 10 grams or less. Maryland, New York and Minnesota have also passed legislation for the use of medical pot.

Kristol also weighed in on President Barack Obama's use of executive power and the recent warnings by Democrats that the GOP wants to impeach the commander-in-chief.

"I’m not for impeaching him, no one really is, I guess, at this point,'' Kristol said.

"The conventional wisdom is … it would be an utter political disaster, a horrible mistake."

Kristol said he was surprised that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio was one of 11 Republicans who voted along with Democrats in the Senate to keep the president's request for $3.7 billion to help ease the U.S.-Mexico border crisis.

"I would have voted on the other way on that…. Getting this president $3 billion with no strings, basically no legal changes … that doesn't sit well with me,'' he said.

"It's not that we're not spending enough money that's causing this to happen right? So it's crazy for Republicans to go along with that Democratic narrative.''

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/marijuana-legal/2014/07/30/id/585901#ixzz395Ef7fQL

Who is this idiot? the drug epidemic? the damage that has been done by the war on drugs far exceeds this and what the fuck do kids have to do with legal drugs for adults.

I would be more worried about the climate then drugs with regards to kids futures. They are going to inherit alot of fucking problems.

[Dos Equis]

Bankrupt California city eyes marijuana for revenue
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
Published July 31, 2014
FoxNews.com

July 11, 2014: Marijuana plants for sale are displayed at the medical marijuana farmers market at the California Heritage Market in Los Angeles, Calif.Reuters
The bankrupt California city of San Bernardino has a new idea for raising revenue – legalize medical marijuana, and tax the pot.

Ironically, the plan was spurred by concerns about not having enough resources to crack down on the illegal medical marijuana dealers springing up all over town.

So the city is now looking at legalizing the sellers, and using the proceeds to enforce the regulations.

It’s not quite “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em,” but like many municipalities in California today, San Bernardino is recognizing that it could be bringing millions of dollars into its foundering coffers each year if it opened its doors to regulated medical marijuana dispensaries. And it would be able to have a say in who operates these places, as well as how and where.

“This is a no-brainer,” said Karen O’Keefe, director of state policies at the Marijuana Policy Project in California. “More and more people are realizing that you’d really have to be in the Stone Age to oppose this.”

But San Bernardino is not exactly there, yet. According to City Attorney Gary Saenz, a legislative review panel has been formed by the City Council to study the idea. This panel is collecting data, talking to the city police department and examining laws in other jurisdictions before bringing a proposal to the full committee. It plans on holding at least two more public meetings on the subject through August.

“We are in the exploratory phase,” Saenz told FoxNews.com, insisting that “my primary objective is to close down the seedy shops.”

Police have reported as many as 20 illegal storefronts in town at any given time, he said. Legalizing and regulating this now-unwieldy industry, he feels, is one of the tools available to the city to start taking control.

“We have in this city a proliferation – and a lot of cities in California are experiencing it – of illegal medical marijuana dispensaries. These people are defiant and they are opening up these things right and left.

“We are a city of limited resources,” he added, noting to shut a business down requires civil enforcement, including protracted legal proceedings, and often the police. Even when they do go after the violators aggressively, often they pop up elsewhere and another comes to town in its place.

“We can’t close them down to the satisfaction of our citizens,” said Saenz, so “this city attorney’s office is presenting our council with options. And the idea is essentially, primarily, to close down illegal shops” and using the new money from the legal ones to do it.

City Council member James Mulvihill said he was on board with the idea early on after hearing it cost the city $10,000 every time it went after an illegal dealer. He, as well as the mayor’s chief of staff, Michael McKinney, say any funds gleaned from the regulation and tax of marijuana dispensaries would be used exclusively for enforcement.

“I think we are making the right steps. It’s been a hot issue,” Mulvihill told FoxNews.com, noting that he has not received a lot of negative feedback since the idea was made public in the last two open council meetings. “Prohibiting them is obviously not working. It’s almost easier to regulate it than prohibit it.”

He said he is supporting a plan to permit less than a half a dozen dispensaries. He said they could charge upward of $60,000 a year in fees, plus something in the order of 10 percent a year in taxes, much like nearby Palm Springs, which he says regulates in order to pay for enforcement too.

McKinney said Mayor R. Carey Davis, prefers “not to see any marijuana dispensaries in the city of San Bernardino,” but is listening to all the options on how to combat the current problems.

McKinney said his office has been getting calls advocating both sides of the issue.

Saenz wants to be clear this idea has not sprung out of a newfound desire of town officials or citizenry to embrace marijuana. In fact, San Bernardino is one of 200 California municipalities that have maintained an outright ban on pot shops since medical marijuana was made legal through a ballot referendum in 1996.

This was reaffirmed last year when the state Supreme Court in San Francisco unanimously ruled that local jurisdictions have authority to prohibit medical marijuana despite its legality at the state level.

But San Bernardino, population 209,924, has other problems. In 2012, it declared bankruptcy, at the time becoming the largest city in the U.S. to do so.

Mulvihill insists his own support for the dispensaries is quite narrow.

“I’m doing this because of the trouble we’re in -- we can’t control it,” he said. “I’m not doing this for potheads.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/31/bankrupt-california-city-eyes-marijuana-for-revenue/

[whork]

Who is this idiot? the drug epidemic? the damage that has been done by the war on drugs far exceeds this and what the fuck do kids have to do with legal drugs for adults.

I would be more worried about the climate then drugs with regards to kids futures. They are going to inherit alot of fucking problems.

+100

[Dos Equis]

$2M Anti-Pot Campaign Warns of Becoming 'Lab Rat'
DENVER — Aug 10, 2014
Associated Press

A campaign to discourage Colorado youths from using marijuana titled "Don't Be a Lab Rat" will use human-sized rat cages and television and movie-theater ads, with the goal of telling teens there's uncertainty surrounding the effects of pot.

The campaign launching Monday moves away from trying to scare teens like some anti-meth commercials, The Denver Post reports ( http://goo.gl/QGTPpQ ). The $2 million campaign was commissioned by the governor's office and uses money from legal settlements with various pharmaceutical companies.

A handful of rat cages will be displayed throughout Denver with campaign messaging, including one calling for volunteers for a lab experiment.

"Volunteers needed," one of the messages will read. "Must have a developing brain. Must smoke weed. Must not be concerned about schizophrenia."

One of the television and theater commercials will show teens lighting up in a smoke-filled car, with text on the screen referencing a Duke University study that argues teenage pot use results in lasting drops in IQ.

Teens will also be directed to a website, DontBeALabRat.com, to read studies on the possible consequences of pot use.

"We don't say, 'It's absolute'; we say, 'This study exists. Some people dispute that. Make up your own mind,'" said Mike Sukle, who created the campaign. "At some point, they have to make up their mind. The days of 'Just Say No,' that was a fairly failed effort."

Sukle has previously worked on anti-meth campaigns designed to shock teenagers to try to prevent them from using the drugs. But with acceptance of marijuana use increasing, the challenge for the campaign was bigger.

"This was a tricky one," Sukle said.

He said his team pitched possible messages to teens, such as telling them marijuana could cost them a scholarship or get them in trouble. But Sukle said the message that stuck was one that addressed the teens' sense of self, and what bothered them was being told about research suggesting marijuana could affect their brain development.

Mason Tvert, a marijuana activist who helped lead the legalization effort in Colorado, is skeptical of the ad campaign and said that it's designed to scare like past anti-drug efforts.

"What it comes down to is are the ads intended to scare them or are the ads intended to inform them?" he said. "These ads are intended to scare them."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/2m-anti-pot-campaign-warns-lab-rat-24923080

[Dos Equis]

This thread is not complete without Rick James.   

[Dos Equis]

Jeb Bush: 'I strongly urge' Floridians to vote against medical marijuana
Alex LearyAlex Leary, Times Washington Bureau Chief
Thursday, August 14, 2014

Jeb Bush is adding his influential voice to the medical marijuana debate in Florida, saying the ballot initiative could harm Florida's reputation.

“Florida leaders and citizens have worked for years to make the Sunshine State a world-class location to start or run a business, a family-friendly destination for tourism and a desirable place to raise a family or retire,” Bush said in a statement. “Allowing large-scale, marijuana operations to take root across Florida, under the guise of using it for medicinal purposes, runs counter to all of these efforts. I believe it is the right of states to decide this issue, and I strongly urge Floridians to vote against Amendment 2 this November.”

Bush joined the the Florida Chamber, Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida and the Florida Trucking Association in the coalition fighting the initiative.

"Normally we focus on creating jobs, improving education and making Florida more competitive, but this is the type of business Florida can do without," said Mark Wilson, President and CEO of the Florida Chamber of Commerce.  "I find it curious that the largest funder of this push to legalize pot is a personal injury trial lawyer firm, yet such measures are overwhelmingly opposed by Florida's medical and law enforcement community.  Florida voters are smart and when the facts are on the table, I believe they will say no to drugs in Florida."

Wilson also raised concerns that growers, transporters, sellers, doctors, patients and caregivers involved in the transfer and administration of potent marijuana products will be given complete civil and criminal immunity under the amendment.  "That," he said, "is a huge red flag for Amendment 2."

Sen. Marco Rubio also says he opposes the medical marijuana voters will decide in November, but Rubio said he supports the use of noneuphoric strains.

http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/jeb-bush-i-strongly-urge-floridians-to-vote-against-medical-marijuana/2192873

[Dos Equis]

7 Harmful Side Effects Pot Legalization Has Caused in Colorado
Cully Stimson    / @cullystimson / August 20, 2014

There is more bad news out of Colorado regarding the negative impact of marijuana legalization.

As I reported a few weeks ago, some professors published a peer-reviewed article on the negative social costs to outright legalization. I noted that although overall traffic fatalities in Colorado have gone down since 2007, they went up by 100 percent for operators testing positive for marijuana—from 39 in 2007 to 78 in 2012. (Colorado legalized marijuana for medical usage in 2009, before legalizing marijuana for other uses in 2012.) Furthermore, in 2007, those pot-positive drivers represented only 7 percent of total fatalities in Colorado, but in 2012 they represented 16 percent of total Colorado fatalities.

Now, there is even more proof from Colorado that legalizing pot, as I have argued before, is terrible public policy.

This new report paints an even bleaker picture of what is happening in Colorado since it legalized the possession, sale, and consumption of marijuana.

According to the new report by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area entitled “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact,” the impact of legalized marijuana in Colorado has resulted in:

1. The majority of DUI drug arrests involve marijuana and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone.

2. In 2012, 10.47 percent of Colorado youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally. Colorado ranked fourth in the nation, and was 39 percent higher than the national average.

3. Drug-related student suspensions/expulsions increased 32 percent from school years 2008-09 through 2012-13, the vast majority were for marijuana violations.

4. In 2012, 26.81 percent of college age students were considered current marijuana users compared to 18.89 percent nationally, which ranks Colorado third in the nation and 42 percent above the national average.

5. In 2013, 48.4 percent of Denver adult arrestees tested positive for marijuana, which is a 16 percent increase from 2008.

6. From 2011 through 2013 there was a 57 percent increase in marijuana-related emergency room visits.

7. Hospitalizations related to marijuana has increased 82 percent since 2008.

The report includes other data about the negative effect of legalizing marijuana in Colorado, including marijuana-related exposure to children, treatment, the flood of marijuana in and out of Colorado, the dangers of pot extraction labs and other disturbing factual trends.

Don’t expect this data to impact the push to legalize pot in Colorado, or elsewhere for that matter. Big pot is big business, and the push to legalize is really all about profit, despite inconvenient facts.

Drug policy should be based on hard science and reliable data. And the data coming out of Colorado points to one and only one conclusion: the legalization of marijuana in the state is terrible public policy.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/20/7-harmful-side-effects-pot-legalization-caused-colorado/

[RRKore]

7 Harmful Side Effects Pot Legalization Has Caused in Colorado
Cully Stimson    / @cullystimson / August 20, 2014

There is more bad news out of Colorado regarding the negative impact of marijuana legalization.

As I reported a few weeks ago, some professors published a peer-reviewed article on the negative social costs to outright legalization. I noted that although overall traffic fatalities in Colorado have gone down since 2007, they went up by 100 percent for operators testing positive for marijuana—from 39 in 2007 to 78 in 2012. (Colorado legalized marijuana for medical usage in 2009, before legalizing marijuana for other uses in 2012.) Furthermore, in 2007, those pot-positive drivers represented only 7 percent of total fatalities in Colorado, but in 2012 they represented 16 percent of total Colorado fatalities.

Now, there is even more proof from Colorado that legalizing pot, as I have argued before, is terrible public policy.

This new report paints an even bleaker picture of what is happening in Colorado since it legalized the possession, sale, and consumption of marijuana.

According to the new report by the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area entitled “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact,” the impact of legalized marijuana in Colorado has resulted in:

1. The majority of DUI drug arrests involve marijuana and 25 to 40 percent were marijuana alone.

2. In 2012, 10.47 percent of Colorado youth ages 12 to 17 were considered current marijuana users compared to 7.55 percent nationally. Colorado ranked fourth in the nation, and was 39 percent higher than the national average.

3. Drug-related student suspensions/expulsions increased 32 percent from school years 2008-09 through 2012-13, the vast majority were for marijuana violations.

4. In 2012, 26.81 percent of college age students were considered current marijuana users compared to 18.89 percent nationally, which ranks Colorado third in the nation and 42 percent above the national average.

5. In 2013, 48.4 percent of Denver adult arrestees tested positive for marijuana, which is a 16 percent increase from 2008.

6. From 2011 through 2013 there was a 57 percent increase in marijuana-related emergency room visits.

7. Hospitalizations related to marijuana has increased 82 percent since 2008.

The report includes other data about the negative effect of legalizing marijuana in Colorado, including marijuana-related exposure to children, treatment, the flood of marijuana in and out of Colorado, the dangers of pot extraction labs and other disturbing factual trends.

Don’t expect this data to impact the push to legalize pot in Colorado, or elsewhere for that matter. Big pot is big business, and the push to legalize is really all about profit, despite inconvenient facts.

Drug policy should be based on hard science and reliable data. And the data coming out of Colorado points to one and only one conclusion: the legalization of marijuana in the state is terrible public policy.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/08/20/7-harmful-side-effects-pot-legalization-caused-colorado/

None of that seem especially compelling, imo. 

Maybe ol' Cully Stimson from The Heritage Foundation is just a hard-liner when it comes to recreational substances, though. 

Any idea what he thinks about alcohol being legal?:

Oh, wait, lol:  What follows is what he wrote about that issue in Sept 2010:

Unsafe in Any Amount: How Marijuana Is Not Like Alcohol

Marijuana advocates have had some success peddling the notion that marijuana is a “soft” drug, similar to alcohol, and fundamentally different from “hard” drugs like cocaine or heroin. It is true that marijuana is not the most dangerous of the commonly abused drugs, but that is not to say that it is safe. Indeed, marijuana shares more in common with the “hard” drugs than it does with alcohol.

A common argument for legalization is that smoking marijuana is no more dangerous than drinking alcohol and that prohibiting the use of marijuana is therefore no more justified than the prohibition of alcohol. As Jacob Sullum, author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, writes:

    Americans understood the problems associated with alcohol abuse, but they also understood the problems associated with Prohibition, which included violence, organized crime, official corruption, the erosion of civil liberties, disrespect for the law, and injuries and deaths caused by tainted black-market booze. They decided that these unintended side effects far outweighed whatever harms Prohibition prevented by discouraging drinking. The same sort of analysis today would show that the harm caused by drug prohibition far outweighs the harm it prevents, even without taking into account the value to each individual of being sovereign over his own body and mind.[7]

At first blush, this argument is appealing, especially to those wary of over-regulation by government. But it overlooks the enormous difference between alcohol and marijuana.

Legalization advocates claim that marijuana and alcohol are mild intoxicants and so should be regulated similarly; but as the experience of nearly every culture, over the thousands of years of human history, demonstrates, alcohol is different. Nearly every culture has its own alcoholic preparations, and nearly all have successfully regulated alcohol consumption through cultural norms. The same cannot be said of marijuana. There are several possible explanations for alcohol’s unique status: For most people, it is not addictive; it is rarely consumed to the point of intoxication; low-level consumption is consistent with most manual and intellectual tasks; it has several positive health benefits; and it is formed by the fermentation of many common substances and easily metabolized by the body.

To be sure, there are costs associated with alcohol abuse, such as drunk driving and disease associated with excessive consumption. A few cultures—and this nation for a short while during Prohibition—have concluded that the benefits of alcohol consumption are not worth the costs. But they are the exception; most cultures have concluded that it is acceptable in moderation. No other intoxicant shares that status.

Alcohol differs from marijuana in several crucial respects. First, marijuana is far more likely to cause addiction. Second, it is usually consumed to the point of intoxication. Third, it has no known general healthful properties, though it may have some palliative effects. Fourth, it is toxic and deleterious to health. Thus, while it is true that both alcohol and marijuana are less intoxicating than other mood-altering drugs, that is not to say that marijuana is especially similar to alcohol or that its use is healthy or even safe.

In fact, compared to alcohol, marijuana is not safe. Long-term, moderate consumption of alcohol carries few health risks and even offers some significant benefits. For example, a glass of wine (or other alcoholic drink) with dinner actually improves health.[8] Dozens of peer-reviewed medical studies suggest that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol reduces the risk of heart disease, strokes, gallstones, diabetes, and death from a heart attack.[9] According to the Mayo Clinic, among many others, moderate use of alcohol (defined as two drinks a day) “seems to offer some health benefits, particularly for the heart.”[10] Countless articles in medical journals and other scientific literature confirm the positive health effects of moderate alcohol consumption.

The effects of regular marijuana consumption are quite different. For example, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (a division of the National Institutes of Health) has released studies showing that use of marijuana has wide-ranging negative health effects. Long-term marijuana consumption “impairs the ability of T-cells in the lungs’ immune system to fight off some infections.”[11] These studies have also found that marijuana consumption impairs short-term memory, making it difficult to learn and retain information or perform complex tasks; slows reaction time and impairs motor coordination; increases heart rate by 20 percent to 100 percent, thus elevating the risk of heart attack; and alters moods, resulting in artificial euphoria, calmness, or (in high doses) anxiety or paranoia.[12] And it gets worse: Marijuana has toxic properties that can result in birth defects, pain, respiratory system damage, brain damage, and stroke.[13]

Further, prolonged use of marijuana may cause cognitive degradation and is “associated with lower test scores and lower educational attainment because during periods of intoxication the drug affects the ability to learn and process information, thus influencing attention, concentration, and short-term memory.”[14] Unlike alcohol, marijuana has been shown to have a residual effect on cognitive ability that persists beyond the period of intoxication.[15] According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, whereas alcohol is broken down relatively quickly in the human body, THC (tetrahydrocannabinol, the main active chemical in marijuana) is stored in organs and fatty tissues, allowing it to remain in a user’s body for days or even weeks after consumption.[16] Research has shown that marijuana consumption may also cause “psychotic symptoms.”[17]

Marijuana’s effects on the body are profound. According to the British Lung Foundation, “smoking three or four marijuana joints is as bad for your lungs as smoking twenty tobacco cigarettes.”[18] Researchers in Canada found that marijuana smoke contains significantly higher levels of numerous toxic compounds, like ammonia and hydrogen cyanide, than regular tobacco smoke.[19] In fact, the study determined that ammonia was found in marijuana smoke at levels of up to 20 times the levels found in tobacco.[20] Similarly, hydrogen cyanide was found in marijuana smoke at concentrations three to five times greater than those found in tobacco smoke.[21]

Marijuana, like tobacco, is addictive. One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana in the course of a year were dependent on the drug.[22] These individuals often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior.[23] Marijuana dependence is also responsible for a large proportion of calls to drug abuse help lines and treatment centers.

To equate marijuana use with alcohol consumption is, at best, uninformed and, at worst, actively misleading. Only in the most superficial ways are the two substances alike, and they differ in every way that counts: addictiveness, toxicity, health effects, and risk of intoxication. [/size]