A year after marijuana legalisation in Colorado, 'everything's fine' confirm police

[Dante Von Hespburg]

This perhaps for a truly empirical study of 'All' drugs being legalized isn't quite the 'be all and end all' source.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...=facebook-post

But what it does put forward is that the 'War on Drugs' really does need to change it's focus and tactics if it wishes to be anything but a major black hole for the public purse. For instance:

"So the sky isn't falling?" a CBC reporter asked the officer? "The sky isn't falling," he replied.Impaired driving, property crime and violent crime were all dropping in Denver prior to legalisation, and the trend has only continued. Even drug use among young people is down.
The state has collected $60 million in tax revenue from sales of the drug meanwhile, $4 million of which has been plugged back into the city through new programs brought in by its mayor (who remains anti-legalisation).
Colorado's unprecedented move led to Washington, Alaska and Oregon voting for legalisation, and this week a bill was filed to legalise it in New York.
Cannabis remains a Class B drug in the UK, carrying a prison sentence for possession of up to five years.

That's quite a nice boost to a regional economy, it's confirmed that policy hasn't seen anything really change- and yet from a UK specific approach we still are imprisoning people for possession of Cannabis- thus wasting public money, while also missing out on 'dat revenue' and job creation.

What's more there is of course the more well known argument, that keeping Cannabis as an illegal substance in the UK actually contributes towards the 'black economy' far more- Street dealers can charge extortionate prices for a substance that's usually actually downright dangerous and of poor quality (Bits added and mixed in to maximize profit'- If the state were to do it, as here we can then regulate it, making it safer, but more importantly gaining an extra revenue bracket.

The profits from the drugs underworld typically help (especially in the case of harder style drugs) underworld activities, like the sex-slave trade. Like pulling people onto a criminal dependency.

Surely this can be seen as the way to go? To expand on it's success as not just a money-making scheme indeed, but also perhaps as a base for the expansion of such a premise to other areas?

I think we can all agree the 'War on Drugs' is a costly, never-ending failure to do as delivered. Is it time to try something new? Or perhaps you feel differently?

Though again for me personally, i can't see the drawbacks of this, nor any longer can i see the justification of the UK in maintaining it as a Class B drug, especially when if all the dangers left now to it are 'health concerns' - well we have Cigarettes and alcohol already on sale.

[Roma_Victrix]

The War on Drugs is a joke. Why criminalize drug users who haven't actually done any other serious crime to hurt or disenfranchise others? They need rehabilitation, not prison sentences that are just going to turn them into hardened criminals by the time they are released back into society. Prison changes a man. Anyone who argues otherwise is a fool. For that matter, once they come out of prison they have so many limited choices in employment (due to employers avoiding ex-convicts and felons) that they have to turn to a life of drugs YET AGAIN. This current justice system is so stupid, evil, and self-defeating that I could scream and throw rotten apples at the next congressmen I see.

Colorado has proven, if anything, that marijuana isn't some ax-murdering inducing agent as portrayed in ridiculous propaganda of the 1920s and 30s, like Reefer Madness. If anything it is on the same level as alcohol if not LESS DANGEROUS because you cannot poison yourself to death and destroy your liver. You can damage the lungs by smoking it, but that can be avoided by doing vaporization or simply eating the pot with food. And of course it kills brain cells, but so does taking a shot of whiskey!

I find it funny that the Prohibition Era in the US has taught us nothing about trying to ban recreational substances. Look at all the violent crime created because of the ban of alcohol! The same can be said for marijuana and other drugs. The Mexican Cartel wouldn't even ing exist if it weren't for these stupid laws criminalizing drug use and possession.

[Captain Jin]

I don't smoke marijuana. Haven't since high school. No interest in it. But I think it should be legalized. It's the single largest revenue stream for drug cartels. If you take it away most of them will whither away, or contract substantially in size. Furthermore you can already basically get marijuana anywhere you want in America at just about anytime. So it's clear it's not going away, nor will it. Taxing it offers a lot of opportunities for the states/fed to get another revenue stream of their own. Sure, there are studies that indicate marijuana leads to a reduction in the gray matter of your brain, but again, alcohol has plenty of its own side effects as well. And what demonized it to begin with? Reefer madness, which is clearly not real.

[conon394]

I don't smoke marijuana. Haven't since high school. No interest in it. But I think it should be legalized. It's the single largest revenue stream for drug cartels. If you take it away most of them will whither away, or contract substantially in size. Furthermore you can already basically get marijuana anywhere you want in America at just about anytime. So it's clear it's not going away, nor will it. Taxing it offers a lot of opportunities for the states/fed to get another revenue stream of their own. Sure, there are studies that indicate marijuana leads to a reduction in the gray matter of your brain, but again, alcohol has plenty of its own side effects as well. And what demonized it to begin with? Reefer madness, which is clearly not real.

Basically what Jin said (not to mention smoking as well). And while a lot of activities have side effects such is life. Weed certainly is not meth or heroin but well below the or at best at par with Alcohol and Smokes.

I think Legalization is more or less a done deal when you add up (by) Legal Medical pot, Legal Recreational pot and Obama's sort of ignore it policy for several years now and of the icing on the Cake the tax money Colorado is getting and the correctional dollars its not spending (although as more states near Colorado do the same the revenue might drop but still.

Jin also very much right money flow. More Taxes for the government and less wasted police resources - good. Less money to the black market less easy to be a successful criminal. I can't recall where but back a while back a I recall reading an essay by a mid level drug dealer written in Prison. Getting guns was not cheap. He didn't what to buy local to avoid stings and what not. He needed to ditch any gun that got used. So he hired poor college kids or retires to drive to say Virgina to buy for him. For that he needed cash flow take away pot and you loose a lot of that.

[Himster]

Sure, there are studies that indicate marijuana leads to a reduction in the gray matter of your brain, but again, alcohol has plenty of its own side effects as well.

Most of which have been somewhat brought into question based on the absurd quantity used in tests: Suffocation causes brain damage does not mean marijuana causes brain damage.

[Caligula's_Horse]

De-criminalizing marijuana makes a lot of sense, for many of the same reasons the US dropped its prohibition laws. Banning the stuff does more harm then good, with the primary groups benefiting being organized crime. While I'm not at all sure legalizing the harder drugs like heroin or crack is a good idea, marijuana at least seems to do less damage when its legal.

Probably worth noting that the old adage about marijuana being a gateway drug is nonsense, at least for users. Dealers are another story entirely, often getting their start dealing with marijuana (because they can get it cheap and easy) then moving up to harder drugs as they build up finance and connections--yet another problem legalization will help solve.

One caveat worth adding to the legislation however, is a ban on driving while high on the stuff until (and if) research proves its safe. I understand the law in most places that made marijuana legal is vague on that point.

[Roma_Victrix]

One caveat worth adding to the legislation however, is a ban on driving while high on the stuff until (and if) research proves its safe. I understand the law in most places that made marijuana legal is vague on that point.

In that regard it should be treated like alcohol, since you're not allowed to be drunk while operating heavy machinery or motor vehicles. Mind you, smoking pot does more to make you paranoid and give you a heightened sense of things, while alcohol just makes you sloppy. However, a person's reaction time to things is impaired in a similar way to being inebriated with alcohol, even if a person who smokes pot has better overall judgment of situations.

[Lord Thesaurian]

These state-level legalizations are a step in the right direction, but are problematic as they are unconstitutional (they conflict with federal legislation, hence the feds could unilaterally shut them down at any time). Because of this business owners and consumers can't be confident about what the full scope of legalities entails which hurts commerce, as does the legislative attitude that marijuana is a taxable vice useful for revenue rather than a legitimate industry.

I think full legalization has reached a consensus nationally. What needs to happen is full legalization at the federal level and explicit regulations put into place so that agents in the market can feel secure moving forward. I also think that the marijuana shouldn't be taxed nearly so heavily, and allowed to develop as any other industry to compete with Latin America. I'm sure there are plenty of empirical arguments to be made on that count, but for now I'll express them as a personal belief based on my desire to see an end to the supply of US dollars flowing into the hands of Latin American drug lords (of course that discussion would mean a discussion about legal cocaine too....)

[Venomousmonkey]

These state-level legalizations are a step in the right direction, but are problematic as they are unconstitutional (they conflict with federal legislation, hence the feds could unilaterally shut them down at any time). Because of this business owners and consumers can't be confident about what the full scope of legalities entails which hurts commerce, as does the legislative attitude that marijuana is a taxable vice useful for revenue rather than a legitimate industry.

I think full legalization has reached a consensus nationally. What needs to happen is full legalization at the federal level and explicit regulations put into place so that agents in the market can feel secure moving forward. I also think that the marijuana shouldn't be taxed nearly so heavily, and allowed to develop as any other industry to compete with Latin America. I'm sure there are plenty of empirical arguments to be made on that count, but for now I'll express them as a personal belief based on my desire to see an end to the supply of US dollars flowing into the hands of Latin American drug lords (of course that discussion would mean a discussion about legal cocaine too....)

Actually there isn't specific part of constitution that grants authority for drug enforcement(outside of interstate commerce). That I can recall anyway, if there are any let me know. The tenth amendment states that if the federal government isn't specified to be able to do something it's left up to the states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

This of course went out the window when our government in 1937 authorized federal enforcement agents to pursue that. They may have reinforced them with laws pass in congress. But the fact remains that we had to add an amendment to ban Alcohol, but when it came to weed and everything else it came down to a stroke of the pen. How was this accomplished? A combination of propaganda to the public and officials.

It was testified in Congress that weed makes white women sleep with black men. So to be honest the whole thing is nuts. I agree with you I just wanted to add.

[GrnEyedDvl]

This is far from the entire story and part of it is an outright lie. What you are not being told in this article is the drastic increase in hit and run accidents that started right after it was was voted on but before it became legal.

There is a frightening trend that is happening in Denver, Colorado. Hit-and-run accidents between motorists, pedestrians and cyclists are increasing at an alarming rate.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/inve...month/9949159/
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials...nd-runs-denver
http://www.mydenveraccidentlawfirm.c...ian-instincts/
http://www.examiner.com/article/hit-...-alarming-rate


Every single day this makes the local news here in Denver. Why nobody has associated it with pot is beyond me. The statistics on this were flat for many years and only started increasing when medical pot became legal. Now Denver is one of the worst cities in the nation.

Another one:
http://www.mydenverduilawyer.com/201...emic-colorado/

Hit and Run “Epidemic” in Colorado
A recent investigation by I-News at Rocky Mountain PBS/9News has revealed some disturbing statistics about the increase in hit and run incidents in Colorado. DUI is not the only traffic crime that has been talked about recently.

Even though overall traffic deaths in Colorado have fallen considerably over the past few years, in 2012, 34 people were killed across Colorado by hit and run drivers, double the number from the year before.

Over the same period of time, Colorado rose to tenth in the nation in terms of hit and run deaths per capita.

Of the 104 people killed in hit and run incidents between 2008 and 2012, nearly two-thirds were pedestrians or bicyclists.

Between 2011 and 2013, approximately 1,300 people in an area including Denver, Aurora and Lakewood, were injured or killed in hit and run accidents. The injuries ranged from bruises to paralysis. In Lakewood, the resulting injuries were particularly severe, with one in every thirteen such incidents resulting in death or “incapacitating” trauma.

Denver police reported a staggering 18,662 hit and run accidents of all types during the past three years – an average of 17 per day.

And another one:
http://hulenlaw.com/recent-car-accid...lorado-part-2/

Denver hit-and-run accident statistics

In 2011, there were 58 hit-and-run accidents involving 62 pedestrians in Denver, with 10 of these injured pedestrians being juveniles.

In 2012, there were 74 hit-and-run accidents involving 77 pedestrians in Denver, with 9 of these injured pedestrians being juveniles. In January through February 2013, there were 16 hit-and-run accidents involving 17 pedestrians in Denver, with 4 of these injured pedestrians being juveniles. The hit-and-run accident statistics for the first two months of 2013 represent an increase in the monthly average of such accidents by about 25 percent (when compared to the monthly average of hit-and-run crashes for 2011 and 2012). - See more at: http://hulenlaw.com/recent-car-accid....vpMhvPZ4.dpuf

http://shanahanlaw.biz/2013-sees-inc...ian-accidents/

The first two months of 2013 ushered in a 46 percent increase in the number of car accidents involving pedestrians that took place in Denver when compared to the past two years, according to the Denver Police Department. Other shocking Denver car accident statistics that have surfaced in the beginning of 2013 are as follows: - See more at: http://shanahanlaw.biz/2013-sees-inc....ALOJEsGG.dpuf

[priam11]

Not sure if serious...

[GrnEyedDvl]

Yeah I am serious. As I said, its in the news here every single day. Its been slowly increasing since medical marijuana became legal and skyrocketed when full legalization hit the ballot.

Nothing else has really changed. Population hasn't seriously increased, 1.3% annually which is bigger than some places considering states like California are actually losing population, but it isn't drastic. Number of cars vs number of people is about the same, actually a bit lower since Denver has been pushing the light rail system to get cars off the street. We have had three serious hit and run accidents in the last week.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/tag/hit-run/

I'm sure 100% of this increase isn't due to pot, but to assume none that none of it is isn't very realistic.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Actually there isn't specific part of constitution that grants authority for drug enforcement(outside of interstate commerce). That I can recall anyway, if there are any let me know. The tenth amendment states that if the federal government isn't specified to be able to do something it's left up to the states.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

This of course went out the window when our government in 1937 authorized federal enforcement agents to pursue that. They may have reinforced them with laws pass in congress. But the fact remains that we had to add an amendment to ban Alcohol, but when it came to weed and everything else it came down to a stroke of the pen. How was this accomplished? A combination of propaganda to the public and officials.

It was testified in Congress that weed makes white women sleep with black men. So to be honest the whole thing is nuts. I agree with you I just wanted to add.

Whatever your personal philosophy may be about whether or not the federal government should regulate drugs, the regulations are there and I'm sure any army of lawyers would be on hand should you wish to challenge them on that. As for the constitutionality of federal enforcement, it's as simple as the Supremacy Clause:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Therefore, the fact that some state governments have legislated in direct conflict with federal drug bans means federal law enforcement could, well, enforce the law at any time.

Yeah I am serious. As I said, its in the news here every single day. Its been slowly increasing since medical marijuana became legal and skyrocketed when full legalization hit the ballot.

Nothing else has really changed. Population hasn't seriously increased, 1.3% annually which is bigger than some places considering states like California are actually losing population, but it isn't drastic. Number of cars vs number of people is about the same, actually a bit lower since Denver has been pushing the light rail system to get cars off the street. We have had three serious hit and run accidents in the last week.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/tag/hit-run/

I'm sure 100% of this increase isn't due to pot, but to assume none that none of it is isn't very realistic.

....Though I would look at that as a problem of people driving under the influence of drugs, not an ill brought on by legalizing the drug itself. Same can be said of alcohol or any other controlled substance.

[GrnEyedDvl]

You edited this in after I replied to someone else, so I will respond to it now.

....Though I would look at that as a problem of people driving under the influence of drugs, not an ill brought on by legalizing the drug itself. Same can be said of alcohol or any other controlled substance.

Without a doubt. But now there are significantly more people using pot than there used to be. Increase the number of users and you automatically increase the number of people who will use it and then drive. The same could be said of alcohol. The difference is that pot has always been portrayed in the media (here at least) as safer than alcohol so maybe people are not taking it as seriously.

There was also something in the news the other day about needing new ways to check for pot use at the time of a traffic stop. There is no breathalyzer for pot after all.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You edited this in after I replied to someone else, so I will respond to it now.


Without a doubt. But now there are significantly more people using pot than there used to be. Increase the number of users and you automatically increase the number of people who will use it and then drive. The same could be said of alcohol. The difference is that pot has always been portrayed in the media (here at least) as safer than alcohol so maybe people are not taking it as seriously.

There was also something in the news the other day about needing new ways to check for pot use at the time of a traffic stop. There is no breathalyzer for pot after all.

Indeed. That is why policymakers at state and national levels need to step up and address the issue as a present reality rather than pretend they can just remind everyone that it's illegal and wait for random state governments to throw together bare bones legislation. And I would also agree that the pro-pot lobby has irresponsibly downplayed the risks and problems incurred to users.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Indeed. That is why policymakers at state and national levels need to step up and address the issue as a present reality rather than pretend they can just remind everyone that it's illegal and wait for random state governments to throw together bare bones legislation. And I would also agree that the pro-pot lobby has irresponsibly downplayed the risks and problems incurred to users.

And they are continuing that downplay as demonstrated by this thread.

Don't get me wrong, I don't especially care one way or another whether its legal or not. Just for full disclosure I voted no on it for a number of reasons but that isn't the point. The point is that its had a far bigger impact than anyone is willing to admit, and that baffles me. I guess people don't want to admit when their pet issue isn't as rosy as they would have everyone believe.

[priam11]

Yeah I am serious. As I said, its in the news here every single day. Its been slowly increasing since medical marijuana became legal and skyrocketed when full legalization hit the ballot.

Nothing else has really changed. Population hasn't seriously increased, 1.3% annually which is bigger than some places considering states like California are actually losing population, but it isn't drastic. Number of cars vs number of people is about the same, actually a bit lower since Denver has been pushing the light rail system to get cars off the street. We have had three serious hit and run accidents in the last week.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/tag/hit-run/

I'm sure 100% of this increase isn't due to pot, but to assume none that none of it is isn't very realistic.

Not one of the links you provided even draw that conclusion. Not one mention of pot and the legal changes that have occur recently. Only you.

The last 3 links are just Law firms ads piggybacking on the original news story.

You have a casual correlation at best and I am being kind when I say that.

[TASS07]

Without (yet) commenting on the anti/pro pot ban affair I want to have a go at two side aspects that arose in this thread.

1. I don't buy the argument we should disallow something because it helps organised crime/is hard to prevent. That is ultimatively a killer argument. EVERY ban is in a way difficult to uphold, else the ban would probably not be necessary. It's the same with guns, drugs, prostitution - lets take as step back away from how much sense we think these bans make, that they encourage organised crime is bad argument to argue for the lifting of a ban. Yes, the organised crime and the fighting of which such a ban requires is a cost that should be considered when imposing one. But that is about it.

2. I'd find the statewide approach problematic from a different angle than a constitutional one: It undermines other states' legislation. I do know and understand the american federal system (and its roots and struggles over the course of centuries) but such ban/no-ban questions IMO are hardly managable at state level, with soft to non-existant borders between these states, the require a nation-wide and uniform approach.

Edit: Do not underestimate GEDs determination in this . We've had at least one lengthy conversation on this topic that I remember. A very interesting one too, although I can not claim that we agreed in all points

[frozenprince]

I posted the wrong one.

[chilon]

There was also something in the news the other day about needing new ways to check for pot use at the time of a traffic stop. There is no breathalyzer for pot after all.

Actually there is:
http://www.laweekly.com/news/lapd-ta...-tests-4255326