Ecstasy and Ketamine are currently legal

nxbyveromdwjpg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I like the irony of posting a speculative comment followed by a demand for evidence of my own. Have you anything to support your theory that it's nowhere near 43 million? You must accept there are costs, not only in running the program but in other areas too.

There is no irony, I'm not speculating - links have already been posted that cover 43 million in tax take without even counting medicinal. Check them.

If you are saying the costs outweigh that, then let's see some links of your own.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The Colarado Department of Transport spent 1 million on a single ad campaign to target drivers under the influence of cannabis last year.

So..? Good, that's common sense.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Cannabis posession charges may be down butI've already explained that these take up a minimum of police time. Even in court. It's no more complex than a traffic summons. On the other hand, since the opening of marijuana dispensaries Colorado has seen an increase in fatal road accidents involving drivers under the influence of cannabis and an overall increase in charges for driving under the influence. And if what I've read is true, it looks like these figures are still going up. So where is all that time saved going? That's right, dealing with marijuana users.

Why don't you send the governers of all the other states know what a bad idea this is - as they don't seem to have figured it out, seeing that the majority are making moves to regulate too.
It's almost like Colorado was a roaring success or something.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It's just economic logic. Substitution is not speculation. It happens in all markets when one product becomes cheaper or more convenient than another. I'll see if Colorado figures for alcohol and nicotine are available online to make a comparison though.

Substitution is not speculation?

You are speculating that there is substitution. There is nothing to back that up at all.

Even if there was, which I don't think there is (yanks don't use tobacco in joints for one thing), that isn't necessary a bad thing at all. Certainly in the case of nicotine.

Little CuChulainn

nm wrote: »

There is no irony, I'm not speculating - links have already been posted that cover 43 million in tax take without even counting medicinal. Check them.

If you are saying the costs outweigh that, then let's see some links of your own.



So..? Good, that's common sense.


Why don't you send the governers of all the other states know what a bad idea this is - as they don't seem to have figured it out, seeing that the majority are making moves to regulate too.
It's almost like Colorado was a roaring success or something.


Substitution is not speculation?

You are speculating that there is substitution. There is nothing to back that up at all.

Even if there was, which I don't think there is (yanks don't use tobacco in joints for one thing), that isn't necessary a bad thing at all. Certainly in the case of nicotine.

You seem to be struggling with a concept. I have not stated that marijuana should not be legalised. I have stated it should be. What I stated is that the benefits are far from the economic and social boon that people suggest. You deny this based solely on tax return and by ignoring everything else including economic principles and other known consequences. I'm not arguing that the tax take isn't high in Colorado, I'm arguing that it is only a small part of the picture.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You seem to be struggling with a concept. I have not stated that marijuana should not be legalised. I have stated it should be. What I stated is that the benefits are far from the economic and social boon that people suggest. You deny this based solely on tax return and by ignoring everything else including economic principles and other known consequences. I'm not arguing that the tax take isn't high in Colorado, I'm arguing that it is only a small part of the picture.

Fair enough, I'm just not going to take unfounded speculation as fact.

Little CuChulainn

nm wrote: »

Fair enough, I'm just not going to take unfounded speculation as fact.

But I've already posted evidence that Washington States tax regime has led to a boom for the black market and the near collapse of the legal industry.

And I've explained how the increase in drug driving is likely to have eliminated any benefit of reduced police time.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/crashes-involving-drivers-on-drugs-increase-after-state-legalizes-marijuana/31203772

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6152309/Colorado-marijuana-DUI-car-accidents-crashes

Not exactly speculation there.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But I've already posted evidence that Washington States tax regime has led to a boom for the black market and the near collapse of the legal industry.

And I've explained how the increase in drug driving is likely to have eliminated any benefit of reduced police time.

http://www.channel3000.com/news/crashes-involving-drivers-on-drugs-increase-after-state-legalizes-marijuana/31203772

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6152309/Colorado-marijuana-DUI-car-accidents-crashes

Not exactly speculation there.

That's only an increase in people testing positive for THC, which stays in the system for days (weeks even), it doesn't mean they're intoxicated and your own link there states that they aren't saying that marijuana was the cause of any accidents.

In fact, since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows

Little CuChulainn

nm wrote: »

That's only an increase in people testing positive for THC, which stays in the system for days (weeks even), it doesn't mean they're intoxicated and your own link there states that they aren't saying that marijuana was the cause of any accidents.

In fact, since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows

Highway fatalities are lower but ones involving marijuana are higher since it was originally legalised in 2006.

mikom

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Highway fatalities are lower but ones involving marijuana are higher since it was originally legalised in 2006.

The drivers probably drank a glass of water too in the month preceding the accident.

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

But I've already posted evidence that Washington States tax regime has led to a boom for the black market and the near collapse of the legal industry.

Slow down there a minute.

Just to be clear you havent posted "evidence" of anything.

You posted a few speculative news stories about issues that are being dealt with.

The retail price is within 10% of the street price so how do you think that has produced a "boom" for the black market seeing as black market prices havent fallen?

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And I've explained how the increase in drug driving is likely to have eliminated any benefit of reduced police time.

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6152309/Colorado-marijuana-DUI-car-accidents-crashes

Not exactly speculation there.

"Not exactly speculation"??

Really?

So they found an increase when they allowed medical marijuana in 2008.

But no further increase with legalisation??

"The latest numbers from the Colorado Department of Transportation found more drivers involved in fatal crashes tested positive for marijuana after 2008 and 2009, when medical marijuana dispensaries began opening widely across the state, but no further increase in 2013, the first full year of completely legalized possession. (Data for 2014, the first year of recreational marijuana sales, isn't available.)"

InTheTrees

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What I stated is that the benefits are far from the economic and social boon that people suggest.

The first retail shops in Seattle opened in August 2014.

The retail system has been up and running for a little over seven months.

It may be just a little early to be declaring it a failure.

The tax rate is like the tax rate on booze or cigarettes (and is controlled by the same people) and can change with every budget. Just because its too high right now doesnt mean it cant change.

The initial state plan was to tax it as the highest rate possible. It is taxed 25% between grower and processor, then taxed 25% between processor and retail outlet and then to consumer. An amazing amount of tax and the plan now is to remove a few of those.

A major problem right now is that businsses cant write off state paid taxes when calculating federal taxes because the feds dont recognise them as legitimate businesses. This means they pay tax on tax. And it will be fixed by Washington State changing the classification of the businesses to satisfy the Feds.

Also the Medical Marijuana dispensaries operate on a completely different system and that needs to be adjusted.

Nothing insurmountable.

Little CuChulainn

mikom wrote: »

The drivers probably drank a glass of water too in the month preceding the accident.

Most likely yeah. Do you make the same excuses for drink drivers?

Rough Sleeper

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Most likely yeah. Do you make the same excuses for drink drivers?

Drink drivers are tested for blood alcohol content, so if they test positive they're still under the influence of the drug to some extent. AFAIK, tests for cannabis consumption detect metabolites that linger in the system so it may have been days since someone tested had actually consumed the drug. It's something I'll have to check.

mikom

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Most likely yeah. Do you make the same excuses for drink drivers?

This.........

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Drink drivers are tested for blood alcohol content, so if they test positive they're still under the influence of the drug to some extent. AFAIK, tests for cannabis consumption detect metabolites that linger in the system so it may have been days since someone tested had actually consumed the drug.

Little CuChulainn

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Drink drivers are tested for blood alcohol content, so if they test positive they're still under the influence of the drug to some extent. AFAIK, tests for cannabis consumption detect metabolites that linger in the system so it may have been days since someone tested had actually consumed the drug. It's something I'll have to check.

Drug drivers are only tested when there is evidence of impairment and no evidence of alcohol. Simply having a drug in your system is not sufficient for a charge.

mikom

What does the word involved tell you?

Rough Sleeper

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Drug drivers are only tested when there is evidence of impairment and no evidence of alcohol. Simply having a drug in your system is not sufficient for a charge.

Fair enough; also, having had a quick glance at the wiki page on drug-impaired driving it seems that marijuana and marijuana metabolite are two two distinct categories in blood/urine tests, so maybe they do have analytically methods of testing for people who are actually stoned. "Marijuana" is pretty ambiguous term though.

Suryavarman

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Product substitution. Smoke a joint instead of a cigarette. Stay in for a few joints instead of go down the pub.

Those 3 drugs have completely different highs. It'd be highly unusual to consider those 3 drugs substitutes for one another.

Considering that pretty much everyone that wants to smoke weed is already smoking it. If you legalise weed you would expect to see people spend less on weed and spend more on clothes, books, video games and other goods that they want. You would not expect to see them spend less on alcohol or nicotine.

keithclancy

Suryavarman wrote: »

Those 3 drugs have completely different highs. It'd be highly unusual to consider those 3 drugs substitutes for one another.

Considering that pretty much everyone that wants to smoke weed is already smoking it. If you legalise weed you would expect to see people spend less on weed and spend more on clothes, books, video games and other goods that they want. You would not expect to see them spend less on alcohol or nicotine.

Most people I know that smoke in NL almost completely gave up alcohol.

Little CuChulainn

Suryavarman wrote: »

Those 3 drugs have completely different highs. It'd be highly unusual to consider those 3 drugs substitutes for one another.

Considering that pretty much everyone that wants to smoke weed is already smoking it. If you legalise weed you would expect to see people spend less on weed and spend more on clothes, books, video games and other goods that they want. You would not expect to see them spend less on alcohol or nicotine.

I'm aware they have different highs. That would not be the reason for the substitution.

LaVail

What a week for the country

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fokDFJnyDZ0

rubadub

Suryavarman wrote: »

Those 3 drugs have completely different highs. It'd be highly unusual to consider those 3 drugs substitutes for one another.

Many will take those drugs as a way to unwind in the evening, or tobacco during the day too, a form of stress relief, or a "night cap", I know many people who would be 50/50 whether to take a threshold dose of cannabis or alcohol in the evening.

If chocolate was legal and crisps were not I would still consider them substitues for each other for similar reasons, even though the taste & texture are very different.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Considering that pretty much everyone that wants to smoke weed is already smoking it.

I would disagree, I know many people who smoked in holland under the false impression that it was legal, they were confident there would be no legal issues. I know others who avoid it here due to the lack of control, hash and more recently weed are know to be a risk for being contaminated by harmful additives. Just like in the prohibition era many would have abstained from illegal alcohol not due to the law, but the risk to their health. There were lots of cases of deaths and blindness in the prohibition era in the US due to contaminated alcohol. A few years ago many countries in the EU gave official warnings about contaminated weed, our bunch of worthless cunts did nothing, probably many of them sitting pissed in the dail at an hour which was illegal for any other citizen to be abusing alcohol at in a bar.

Suryavarman wrote: »

If you legalise weed you would expect to see people spend less on weed and spend more on clothes, books, video games and other goods that they want. You would not expect to see them spend less on alcohol or nicotine.

I would expect them to be buying more weed as they are now freer to smoke it and so would be probably be doing so in more situations/events. I would expect a knock on effect of lower alcohol consumption, just as I have seen lowering of alcohol when people go to amsterdam and smoke.

If chocolate was legal and crisps were not then similarly if crisps were legalized I would expect a fall in chocolate sales. Some people have this odd idea that users will continue to drink the exact same amount and take these newly relegalized drugs on top of the others.

BetterThanThou

I think if weed were legalized, my alcohol consumption would go down. At the weekends, I like to go out and socialize while getting intoxicated. Nearly all weekends, that's alcohol, because weed simply isn't fun around drunk people, just as I'd imagine alcohol isn't very much fun around stoners. If I could go out and socialize in a cannabis smoking club while getting high, I'd love that, I'd imagine my alcohol consumption would fall drastically, as a drug, I've always liked the effects of weed more than alcohol. I don't like to combine the two too often, due to the hangover it gives from being so intoxicated, so I'd imagine my alcohol consumption would easily cut in half if cannabis were legalized.