Legalization of marijuana benefits schools and decreases crime rate

[TroyJackson]

link to article: http://goo.gl/V9c61f

"After legalizing marijuana for recreational use, nearly $50 million in revenue was generated to fund schools and local hospitals. At the same time, crime rates have also decreased substantially.

A research was conducted on criminals in the state of Colorado. "

[lilsourgoose]

1. ...and, unfortunately, increases car accident fatalities

http://www.today.com/health/driving-while-high-marijuana-causing-spike-fatal-accidents-t91746

[Warpy]

2. Oh, FFS. And how many of those fatalities also involved alcohol?

One of the very last things I ever wanted to do back in the good old days of getting stoned was get behind the wheel of a car and drive it somewhere. I knew I was impaired. Most stoners do.

Unless they're also drinking. Then they're all Superman.

[lilsourgoose]

12. Really?

I am 100% for the legalization of marijuana. But being for the legalization of marijuana shouldn't mean suddenly you put blinders on and ignore common sense and scientific evidence. Does anyone seriously believe that being stoned would have zero impact on your driving? Seriously???? Do you really believe that people who are stoned out of their mind don't ever drive? "I knew I was impaired. Most stoners do." is hardly the epitome of convincing research.

Most of us believe alcohol should be legal, but very few believe that it has no impact on driving ability. I'd even admit that someone drinking Monster energy drinks might have a different attitude towards responsible driving than someone drinking apple juice. Why are the pro-marijuana people so adamant that marijuana usage could never ever possibly in a million years have a single negative impact? It's baffling. I hate seeing critical thinking vanish from the same people who get so fed up with fundies and Trump supporters for ignoring science .

[Warpy]

13. Had you read carefully

you'd have noted my objection was that alcohol was not eliminated as a co factor. That's critical thinking. Accepting a small study from one state at face value is not.

Why do the anti pot people never object to this? It's a dishonest study from one state on top of other dishonest studies that never considered anything but a positive result to cannabinoids.

Pot is likely to make drunks worse. However, the major problem is the alcohol.

In the meantime, to aid your own progress toward critical thinking, I offer the following: "Thus, there is evidence that subjects in the marijuana group were not only aware of their intoxicated condition, but were also attempting to compensate for it. These seem to be important findings. They support both the common belief that drivers become overconfident after drinking alcohol and investigators' suspicions that they become more cautious and self- critical after consuming low doses of THC, as smoked marijuana. "

http://www.ukcia.org/research/driving/01.php

[Warren DeMontague]

3. bullshit.

did the actual number of crashes go up? No. What changed, as the article belatedly notes, is between 2010 and 2014 they started testing more for THC.

THC, which can show up - due to being fat soluble- in a test some 3 weeks after someone smokes marijuana. Long, long after any sane person would argue they're impaired by the stuff.

The total number of crashes didn't go up, so the idea that all of a sudden "pot started causing fatal crashes" is bullshit.

[nationalize the fed]

4. And the Gov admits THC kills Cancer Cells

but their lackeys keep saying there's no medical benefits, even though they have a patent on the use of the main ingredient (6630507)

Cannabinoids appear to kill tumor cells but do not affect their nontransformed counterparts and may even protect them from cell death. For example, these compounds have been shown to induce apoptosis in glioma cells in culture and induce regression of glioma tumors in mice and rats, while they protect normal glial cells of astroglial and oligodendroglial lineages from apoptosis mediated by the CB1 receptor... http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/hp/cannabis-pdq#section/_7

Why is the Gov allowed to lie and say there are no medical benefits? And why don't reporters ask about it?

[alain2112]

5. Because there is no demonstrated medical benefit

People have gotten encouraging results in animal models and in vitro tests, but if that's all there were to it then laetrile would have defeated cancer four decades ago - a lot of work, and failures, stand between an encouraging result and a demonstrated effective remedy. That is why the FDA goes through the bother and fuss of the four stage trails, to demonstrate that medicines and devices introduced into American medical practice are both safe and effective.

Before anyone gets angry, recreational marijuana is great and it should be legalized.

However, as a completely difference matter, we do have a problem with true believers in the miraculous (yet unproven) curative powers of cannabinoids who are trying to hijack the legalization movement and use politics to evade the medically and scientifically sound testing requirements that prevent charlatans from selling false hope to desperate people.

If a proposed cure is really any good, submit it for testing and demostrate that it works and everyone will be happy. The only people who will be blocked will be those who are pushing fake "cures" that don't stand up to scrutiny - exactly the kind of thing we don't want people selling.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. we've had decades of drug warriors claiming it would make you violent, cause your nuts to fall off

and turn you into a heroin addict.

Is there a small amount of hyperbole in the other direction? I suspect so, however, best thing for all concerned is full legalization, then we can find out what if any benefits the stuff has.

There sure seems to be some evidence of some medical benefits.

http://www.esquire.com/lifestyle/health/news/a46593/marijuana-alzheimers-research/

[pipoman]

8. Of coarse there are medical benefits....don't expect those being enriched

By the pharmaceutical companies to ever acknowledge the truth...

[pipoman]

7. Who's scrutiny? Oh...those most tied to the pharmaceutical industry?

Those who have decided that opiates are A-OK for long term use resulting in mass addiction? Those who have fought tooth and nail against even testing this 3,000 year old substance used for treatment like asprin with less bad side effects. The same group who has made it a schedule 1 drug even though it has never resulted in a fatality, isn't chemically addictive, and is very easy to produce? The same people who have fought testing for decades?

No, the scientific community is only interested in making money. They have demonstrated this over and over.

[Wounded Bear]

10. That would be a great idea....

If a proposed cure is really any good, submit it for testing and demostrate that it works and everyone will be happy. The only people who will be blocked will be those who are pushing fake "cures" that don't stand up to scrutiny - exactly the kind of thing we don't want people selling.

Unfortunately, mariuana research has been illegal since forever. Hard to submit something for testing when it will get you arrested just for possessing it.

[whistler162]

9. So using the same argument that worked for

Lottery's!

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Colorado’s 2015 Marijuana Tax Results: $135 Million, $35 Million Going to Schools

Oregon is in the first year taxing cannabis. Projections are 43 million first year, about 31 in years going forward (tax rate drops). 25% of that goes to pay for regulating the cannabis market, 40 percent to the state's Common School Fund, 20 percent to mental health, alcoholism and drug services, 15 percent to Oregon State Police, 10 percent for city law enforcement, 10 percent for county law enforcement and 5 percent to the Oregon Health Authority for alcohol and drug abuse prevention, early intervention and treatment services.


So funds schools, funds anti-crime measures. Colorado and Washington have both seen large declines in opiate overdoses, around 25%. This is interesting because mainstream politicians are still opposed to legal cannabis while they say they 'want to find a way to lower opiate overdoses by 15%'. Do they really care to lower overdose rates? Does not really seem that way.