UCSC sociologist says making pot legal does not boost use

Santa Cruz (CA) Sentinel ^ | May 4, 2004 | ANNA GOSLINE

[johnfrink]

As we speak Ashcroft is putting in an audit request for Professor Reinarman. Those who offer evidence that contradicts our sacred War on Drugs (TM) will be punished.

[Mr. Mojo]

A sociologist at UC Santa Cruz? lol.....Who are we going to hear from next, an ethnopharmacologist at Cal State Humboldt?

[Lunatic Fringe]

Comparing the drug use rate of Amsterdam to the drug use rate of San Francisco?

That's like comparing the death rate of Baghdad to that of South Central L.A. and saying, "See, it's not THAT bad!"

[philman_36]

We believe that pot is a gateway drug.
Some people believe that the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus are real.
Just belieeeeeeve...

[Steely Tom]

UCSC sociologist says making pot legal does not boost use

Another of those strange, counterintuitive paradoxes that that the non-academic mind can simply not comprehend.

(steely)

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

So why legalize it, if the same people are going to use it anyway?

I'm sure a similar study would show that repealing all civil rights legislation passed since 1964 would not increase the amount of discrimination in the country. Only in that case, it would be true.

[Tacis]

What a great headline!

"UCSC sociologist says making pot legal does not boost use ..." BUT, IT WOULD DROP MY COSTS A WHOLE BUNCH!!

[John H K]

Do you think alcohol use among those under 21 years old has declined since the drinking age has risen from 18 to 21?

[The kings dead]

So why legalize it, if the same people are going to use it anyway?

So they won't be punished for acts that don't infringe on anybody else's liberties, and so we won't have to pay for that punishment.

[John H K]

Well, you save billions of dollars used to imprison/prosecute/chase pot users, and cops have more time to pursue other crimes if they aren't chasing pot users.

And, of course, you could always tax pot sales for a financial windfall.

[Protagoras]

So why legalize it, if the same people are going to use it anyway?

Because it never should have been criminalized in the first place. It's not governments business.

[Belisaurius]

Are we really spending 'billions of dollars' chasing pot users? I know we're spending 'billions of dollars' trying to criminalise tobacco, FWIW.

[VisualizeSmallerGovernment]

you could always tax pot sales for a financial windfall.

I used to think that as well, but since the number of pot smokers isn't going to increase when it's legalized, why bother?

And if the government has no business criminalizing pot, why would they have any business taxing it?

This line of reasoning is not associated with other banned substances. You don't hear people say "Let's legalize thalidomide and tax it heavily!"

[Blood of Tyrants]

Many of those here who claim to not trust the government and value freedom support the unconstitutional laws that allow the WOD.

[nmh]

LOL!

[MEGoody]

"he found there was no difference between drug-use rates in Amsterdam, where marijuana is freely bought at licensed coffee shops, and San Francisco, where pot-smokers still can get busted."

Oh, they CAN get busted in SF, but they hardly ever do. And if they do, it's barely a slap on the wrist. Not exactly a valid comparison.

[zook]

The study's implications are limited. He compared two cities in which pot use was already relatively high, then finds that use rates don't differ much after one city decriminalizes.

The study can say nothing about the effect of decriminalization in areas where pot use is currently relatively low. One could reason, for example, that the effect could be quite dramatic in small towns as decriminalization permits an influx of supply.

Researchers should refrain from talking past their data.

[motzman]

I used to think that as well, but since the number of pot smokers isn't going to increase when it's legalized, why bother?

Just the existing amount of smokers would be enough to generate billions.

And if the government has no business criminalizing pot, why would they have any business taxing it?

Most legal products are subject to taxation upon sale.

This line of reasoning is not associated with other banned substances. You don't hear people say "Let's legalize thalidomide and tax it heavily!"

Uhhh...OK Beavis...

[The Other Harry]

Are we really spending 'billions of dollars' chasing pot users? I know we're spending 'billions of dollars' trying to criminalise tobacco, FWIW.

I'll say this...

MJ is less harmful than booze.

The MJ that is available in Amsterdam is quite good. I would never have found the hotel room if one of us - which was not me -- had not stayed straight. Everything is a "gedracht", and they all look the same. I'd still be there.

Walking thru the red light district when you are ripped is an experience you will never forget. Surreal. There's no need to engage. Just looking is enough.