Pot-Positive Traffic Fatalities Up 100% in Colorado

Cybercast News Service ^ | November 26, 2014 - 9:48 AM | Cully Stimson

[Olog-hai]

… The data coming out of Colorado is exhibit A on why voters should reject legalization efforts. Even the Democratic governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, said that legalizing marijuana in Colorado was “reckless.” As I have written at Heritage, pot-positive traffic fatalities have gone up 100 percent since voters legalized pot in Colorado. This is true despite the fact that overall traffic fatalities in Colorado have gone down since 2007.

A report by a federal grant-funded agency in Colorado found seven specific negative side effects that pot legalization has caused in Colorado:

1. the majority of DUI drug arrests involve marijuana;
2. youth consumption of marijuana has increased;
3. drug-related suspensions/expulsions increased 32 percent over a 5-year period and a majority was for marijuana;
4. an increase in college users;
5. almost 50 percent of Denver arrestees tested positive for marijuana;
6. marijuana-related emergency room visits increased 57 percent from 2011-2013; and
7. marijuana-related hospitalizations has increased 82 percent since 2008.

Perhaps people are also aware of new scientific studies pointing to the inherent dangers of marijuana. For example, the British health research journal The Lancet Psychiatry recently concluded that teens who smoke marijuana are “also 60 percent less likely to graduate college and seven times more likely to attempt suicide.” …

[Secret Agent Man]

Here’s where I need to get with it.

Potheads need to admit that pot is destructive. Alcoholics know alcohol is, they don’t kid themselves about it. To deny pot is destructive is to be in denial about the nature of it and nothing constructive can go on without this.

Potheads need to admit it needs to be regulated because they don’t live in a libertarian vacuum world where ONLY they are harmed by pot. We see that in the real world the alcoholic harms a lot more people than just themselves, directly and indirectly. There’s no nice vacuum where only they get hurt. And hurt is defined more than just damaging the body.

Potheads need to admit laws need to be in placed for pot users that hurt others while under the influence. We have drunk driving laws. There must be under the influence pot laws because we’ve seen they do hurt people while on pot, and they will continue to do so in the future.

There are also age limits for alcohol. There will be age limits for pot. I would go so far as to say as we did with alchol in places where certain ages could have beer but not hard liqour, certain ages (younger) couldn’t have certain more potent strains of pot until an older age.

There are also places where alcohol isn’t allowed. Same for pot. If you’re drunk or high you can’t be in those places.

I think if you injure or kill people under the influence of alcohol or pot, it should be 2nd degree homicide (not premeditated). Not merely manslaughter on the lesser negligent homicide. They know pot kills reflexes and cognitive thinking, and that’s just not giving a sh1t about anyone just to personally “feel good”.

But the whole mentality of pot folks that say it only affects the person and nobody else, is libertarian bullsh1t. That denial has to be dropped because you know by the real world that is just not true. You know alcohol isn’t like that so drop that argument because nobody’s buying it. The potheads who point out the societal problems of alcohol as justification for legalizing pot, fail to notice they destroy their own “drugs won’t hurt anyone else” position.

[TheOldLady]

The person is an annoying know-it-all, but I’m not smelling any ozone just yet.
Cheeky n00bs usually stumble onto the third rail all on their own eventually.

With that attitude, the person will probably not last long. When they neglect to
lurk and learn, to find out how long other FReepers have been here compared to
them, and to realize their place here, they tend to get escorted out the door.

Let it go. You have posted some fine information on this thread, so don’t let a
haughty n00b tell you different. ;-)

[ConservingFreedom]

We have drunk driving laws. There must be under the influence pot laws because we’ve seen they do hurt people while on pot, and they will continue to do so in the future.

There are also age limits for alcohol. There will be age limits for pot. I would go so far as to say as we did with alchol in places where certain ages could have beer but not hard liqour, certain ages (younger) couldn’t have certain more potent strains of pot until an older age.

There are also places where alcohol isn’t allowed. Same for pot. If you’re drunk or high you can’t be in those places.

I think if you injure or kill people under the influence of alcohol or pot, it should be 2nd degree homicide (not premeditated). Not merely manslaughter on the lesser negligent homicide.

Works for me.

But the whole mentality of pot folks that say it only affects the person and nobody else

I'm not "pot folks" and I don't concern myself with "affects," which are generally none of government's business, but with violations of rights. Drug or alcohol use in itself violates no rights (unless a parent renders themselves unable to meet their responsibilities to their minor children).

[saleman]

Your strawman is duly noted.

The “abuses” are not only the cops. The abuses are the laws and procedures, forfeiture being one, 4th amendment violations another. There are plenty more but those two will cover a bunch.

[sickoflibs]

RE:”if we can't afford to legalize drugs can we afford to keep the addictive mind-altering drug alcohol legal?”

I have always said and still say that its best to let states make these individual decisions as test cases for us to observe and conclude on rather than a nationwide decree of legalization or Prohibition.

I always tell this to libs here who defend Obamacare;

I don't want a national King who calls himself conservative either.

Lets see how this test case in CO works out, I said this when it passed and repeat it now.

[ConservingFreedom]

That's the Constitutional position.

[stephenjohnbanker]

OK : )

[BillyBoy]

>> Lets see how this test case in CO works out <<

The headline to this article has already answered that question. Not that any of the "weed is harmless and a bunch of people going around stoned in public won't hurt anyone" people on the left OR right will admit they were wrong.

>> I don't want a national King who calls himself conservative either. <<

I agree, but as Impy noted, check out post #3 on this thread. It seems some freepers are actually advocating that:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3228427/posts?page=3#3

[ConservingFreedom]

The headline to this article has already answered that question.

No it didn't - but post #192 did

[sickoflibs]

RE:”The headline to this article has already answered that question.
......
No it didn't - but post #192 did”

A number of years back some libertarians here started liking me because I was so critical of GWB’s war policies but when I would post that Ron Paul's ideas on legalizing crack and crystal meth then offering them free treatment when they get addicted was stupid, they would freak out. Paul nuts would get enraged.

Similarly some so-cons would go nuts when I said that abortion laws belong at the state level like with murder.

Some are just so one issue nuts.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Drugs are way down near the bottom of my worries right now. By the way, you spee sponish ? : )

[sickoflibs]

RE:”Drugs are way down near the bottom of my worries right now. By the way, you spee sponish ? : )”

How about illegals getting high? Then getting the munchies?

[stephenjohnbanker]

” How about illegals getting high? Then getting the munchies? “

Illegal “entrant”: “ We hov food stomps, man”

[gundog]

One of my memories of CO is the number of cars with one great big dent in them from accidents on icy roads.