Since marijuana legalization, highway fatalities in Colorado are at near-historic lows

The Washington Post ^ | August 8th, 2014 | Radley Balko

[Blood of Tyrants]

The history of China isn’t that simple. China already had a weak government when Great Britain started selling opium to them. When the weak government of China tried to outlaw opium, the British invaded and destroyed them. It was decade after decade of being crapped on by the British and then the Japanese that gave rise to the communist.

Also, up until 1914 recreational drugs were completely legal in the US and it didn’t destroy the country. Back then we believed in something called “personal responsibility” instead of relying on the iron fist of government. Just how many freedoms are you willing to give up to ensure your neighbor doesn’t smoke a joint and watch cartoons?

[DiogenesLamp]

OK, chilren, let’s do some math. Pothead hippies take over the arts, media, academia and two generations later, conservatives find their butts getting kicked, scratching their heads and wondering if they really are obsolete.

And if you think Pot did all that then you aren't knowledgeable enough or intelligent enough to bother arguing with. I don't think you believe that, but you felt the need to throw that out there as a cheap shot.

I could probably write a 20 page essay on what social changes occurred to create the liberal dominance of the media and academia. The prime factor is money, not pot. Money Liberalizes. After World War II, the United States became the most prosperous nation on Earth. That and other factors fueled the rise of Liberalism after the war. (And not the least of which was the development of sound and image recording systems which allowed heretofore lowly regarded Libertine "Actors" to have far more power and influence.)

Two pothead phone phrackers invent the personal computer and here we are typing messages on Free Republic.

I didn't see Steve Jobs doing a hell of a lot of "inventing" other than new marketing schemes. His talent was sales, not development. I think it was Wozniak that did the lion's share of the "inventin."

Now I just did a search for Steve Wozniak and "Pot" and also "Marijuana" and pretty much every return I looked at said Jobs smoked pot and LSD, but I never did find anything saying the Woz did. Maybe he did and I just haven't found it yet, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a prominent aspect of his life.

I will also point out that Woz is still alive, and Jobs is dead. Apparently killed by his nutty idea of being a "fruitarian."

[Blood of Tyrants]

BTW, the WOD was started when southern Democrats needed a way to imprison blacks on their prison-plantations, so they made up the story that black men were smoking cocaine and raping white women. That wasn’t true, of course, but Woodrow Wilson, a known racist, jumped on it as a way to force his idea of morality on the nation. That law was eventually declared unconstitutional but a different version was passed under another socialist, FDR, and the courts were afraid of his so they let it go.

[DiogenesLamp]

After all, it IS far more dangerous and damaging than pot.

We've had several thousand years to evaluate the effects of alcohol. We have had very little time to evaluate the effects of pot.

I think it's too early to say it is less dangerous because we haven't really done this experiment yet. It may very well be, but I don't know.

All the long term users I know are worthless F**Ks, but maybe it won't start an epidemic of worthless F**kery among young adults.

I'm actually glad some of the states are experimenting with this. Perhaps we will get some clear answers as to how dangerous is legalized pot long term. I'm ready to be convinced that it is less so than Alcohol, but it will take some time.

[newnhdad]

but pizza delivery has increased 10 fold so...

[Ken H]

Remember back when cars had metal bumpers ?

Or when baby buggies had rubber bumpers?

[DiogenesLamp]

So do cars and fries and whiskey and stupid.

We need cars, and we can't help whiskey or stupid. Stupid comes natural for a lot of people, and Whiskey is going to be around.

Why should we care if somebody decides to kill themselves?

The question is simpler than the answer. There are multiple answers to this question but they depend heavily on other factors.

In World War II, the United States forces were pushing back the Japanese Army. In Japanese culture, being defeated is a great dishoner, and many Japanese officers were killing themselves from the shame. The problem got so bad that the Emperor had to issue an order forbidding Japanese soldiers from killing themselves.

In this instance, they cared about people killing themselves because it affected their ability to defend the homeland. Dead citizens are not helpful at this. They are also not helpful in any nation, because whatever it is they would have contributed is lost.

Now we can afford some level of suicide in this nation, but the amount we can afford is limited. If sufficient quantities of people were killing themselves, then it would have severe repercussions for our economy and defense.

As long as the people killing themselves are the worthless F**ks and the dredges of society, we will probably see some benefit from it, but the problem with drugs is that it will turn decent contributing members of society into worthless F**ks that might as well kill themselves quickly than robbing and stealing from the rest of us to feed their drug habit. The problem is, they won't. They will linger and rob and steal from the rest of us until they eventually die of an overdose or some other drug related malady.

Oh, and this thread is about POT, not heroin. Or meth or any of that other stuff.

Libertarians do not see a boundary between one drug and another. You see, their philosophical argument is that taking drugs constitutes a "RIGHT" and is therefore applicable to any and all drugs.

Whether you like it or not, if you are going to argue a right for the most harmless, you are going to have to accept that same right for the most deadly.

So here we are talking about all drugs in a thread in which the proponents want to limit it to pot, and that doesn't even address the issue of a gateway drug.

[Smokin' Joe]

I really do not think that traffic fatalities are the only metric by which the effects of legalized pot can be determined. Nor, for that matter, do I think that six months' data is sufficient to project long term effects.

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and I for one, am content to await more information.

[DiogenesLamp]

Most of the people I know smoke pot. None of them are on welfare. They all have better than average careers.

I'm guessing you live in California, or perhaps Further up the coast. Sometimes just being in the right place at the right time can change your fortunes for the better.

Maybe it’s just that the people you know are worthless F**ks and would be regardless.

Oh, I know plenty of people who are not worthless F**ks. It's just the ones that I know who smoke pot which are.

I think maybe your conclusions are skewed due to the people you hang out with lol.

I bet I have a wider range of social ladder than do you. I've seen the gutter and the Manor house. I know millionaires and paupers.

[Smokin' Joe]

There are studies that show the more often people use weed, the less it impairs them.

How do you measure impairment with an habitual user? Do you have data before they started using frequently? Before they started using at all?

It's like saying breaking the second leg didn't significantly slow the racehorse.

[DiogenesLamp]

I go to your link and look at it, and what's the first thing it says?

DENVER -- Fewer high school students in Colorado think using marijuana is risky.

So we are basing our conclusion that teen usage is down based on a survey of what high school kids think about the danger of marijuana use? Can you get more asinine in trying to pass that off as a valid piece of data? My thinking is the stoners wouldn't even bother filling out the survey.

Medical marijuana was legalized in Colorado in 2011. Drug warriors said legalization would increase use by juveniles. The survey data indicate that the drug warriors were wrong.

Yes, because High School kids who don't see any danger from Pot usage is totes the same thing as teen usage going down.

In any case, the fact is that legalization has not caused an increase in underage use of marijuana in Colorado. In fact, the opposite has occurred.

Well of course. Taking an opinion survey from High Schoolers on the the dangerous of Pot is exactly the same thing as usage has declined. Exactly. Because teens see less danger, they will obviously use less pot, therefore usage has declined.

Got it.

[DiogenesLamp]

And if she had been able to purchase it herself at the grocery store like booze she NEVER WOULD HAVE EVEN GIVEN THE PIMP THE TIME OF DAY.

Yeah, because everybody turns down free weed when you can go buy it. You're just too smart for me.

Prohibition, keeping the pimps and gangsters in business!

And the constant comparison between Prohibition and drugs is just about the biggest lie the pot heads keep spreading. That, and that the stuff is harmless.

[MaxMax]

Now every statistic that goes down in CO will be because of POT.

PotHeads will never get any respect from me either way. Losers.
And I hope every one of them lose their jobs over the drug testing.

[RBroadfoot]

You're right! I clipped the wrong line from the article.

Thirty-day marijuana use fell from 22 percent in 2011 to 20 percent in 2013, and lifetime use declined from 39 percent to 37 percent during the same two years. None of the declines shown in the preliminary data represent a statistically significant drop in rates.

Did you actually read the article?

[DiogenesLamp]

As I pointed out the plural of anecdote is not fact. Your “OG” is not proof. You’re “watching it” is not proof. The science of addiction is pretty well understood, and it does not happen on one shot. That’s not sophistry, that’s fact.

Blather on. You won't be persuaded by my experience. We nowadays have an entire class of people that has to learn things the hard way. Some of them still haven't figured out Obama is an idiot and will get a bunch of people killed. They're smart like that on drugs as well.

No DTs no addiction. There’s no such thing as “so close as makes no difference”, they’re either addicted, or they aren’t. And after one shot, they aren’t. And saying otherwise is lying.

If I could reach through the monitor, I would have slapped you upside the head for saying that again, but Mr. Keyboard warrior is safe and secure in his mommies basement just like his Namesake Discostu.

[TexasFreeper2009]

the key word here is “fatalities”

getting high relaxes you, being relaxed during a crash actually helps you survive it.

[right way right]

Prolly Less, road rage with more laid back drivers.
Heeeey, cool man....relax waatch the parade man...

[Mariner]

"but the problem with drugs is that it will turn decent contributing members of society into worthless F**ks that might as well kill themselves quickly than robbing and stealing from the rest of us to feed their drug habit".

I'm sure it happens as our modern folklore is rife with it.

I've just never seen it.

Usually sh!t is born sh!t.

"Whether you like it or not, if you are going to argue a right for the most harmless, you are going to have to accept that same right for the most deadly."

Last I checked you don't get a vote in what I "have" to do and I'm sure not going to award you one.

You'll not frame the terms of a General Argument on Free Republic. Folks won't accept it, just like you don't accept my frame.

[DiogenesLamp]

The history of China isn’t that simple. China already had a weak government when Great Britain started selling opium to them. When the weak government of China tried to outlaw opium, the British invaded and destroyed them. It was decade after decade of being crapped on by the British and then the Japanese that gave rise to the communist.

The British had Technological superiority over the Chinese. They blew the Hell out of Shanghai and killed thousands of people with their cannon fire. Chinese ships were simply no match for them, and so the Chinese had to sue for piece. As part of the Treaty, the British required the Emperor to make no armaments (cannons) with which he could threaten the Brits. (Were I him, I would have done it anyways, but the British had their spies.)

The Japanese, on the other hand, started copying British Technology, and in a few decades they could field a force that could do some damage to the Brits. Of course they never had to deal with Opium streaming into their port cities.

Also, up until 1914 recreational drugs were completely legal in the US and it didn’t destroy the country.

OMFG! This is the stupid meme that will just not freaking die! And here I am having once more to explain that Drug usage and availability did not even get started in this country until the Civil War and it's aftermath. Sure, there were Opiodes and Cocanoids since the 1700s, but usage and availability was never sufficient to let them develop into a problem.

You are also wrong about when we first started interfering with drug usage and sales. It wasn't begun with the Harrison Narcotic act of 1914, the first legislative act was the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906.

By this time, a lot of people were noticing a great deal of problems being caused by Laudanum and other Addictive substances. They passed the pure food and drug act because they wanted to know what people were putting into all those "Patent" medicines. As it turned out, it was mostly opiods cocanoids and alcohol. People were dying from the stuff.

The usage by 1900 had risen to two percent of the population (estimated) and it pretty much stabilized at that level. It was 2% a hundred years ago, and it's still 2% today. It didn't get any worse because we started fighting it. Do you want to see what happens when you don't?

Back then we believed in something called “personal responsibility” instead of relying on the iron fist of government.

No, people back then pretty much believed in the Iron fist of Government. Have you never heard of this thing called the "Civil War"?

Apart from that, it is the government's responsibility to insure that it's population isn't dying en masse, and towards that end it is reasonable for the government to intervene in any occasions in which the population is so threatened.

Just how many freedoms are you willing to give up to ensure your neighbor doesn’t smoke a joint and watch cartoons?

None. That's why I don't want them stealing from me directly, or mooching off me through government welfare. I also don't want them spreading that sh*t to other people who are so inclined to do so.

Beyond that, you are using the least dangerous and most trivial of drugs to justify a philosophy that opens the door for the most deadly and horrible ones.

Your philosophy is either correct or it isn't, and if it is, then you've got to take the bad drugs too, and if it isn't, you'll have to come up with another argument as to why we should draw the line at pot and forbid meth.

[DiogenesLamp]

BTW, the WOD was started when southern Democrats needed a way to imprison blacks on their prison-plantations, so they made up the story that black men were smoking cocaine and raping white women.

You are full of sh*t. Drug addiction began in this country as a result of Soldiers in the Civil war (both sides) being treated with medication for pain relief. At the time, no one knew that stuff was addictive, but after the civil war we ended up with 400,000 drug addicts.

Also have you ever heard of this little thing called "Coca Cola"? It started out as wine mixed with cocaine, but it quickly changed into Soda Water mixed with cocaine. People loved it. It made them feel great!

Now what do you suppose was happening as people started buying more and more of this refreshing beverage? (and others which were on the market.) Educate yourself and stop repeating that libertarian propaganda.