Posted on 07/02/2014 11:27:52 AM PDT by Rebelbase
$19 million in new tax revenue.
Marijuana-related arrests, which make up 50% of all drug-related crimes, have plummeted in Colorado, freeing up law enforcement to focus on other criminal activity. By removing marijuana penalties, the state saved somewhere between $12 million and $40 million in 2012, according to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.
According to government data, the Denver city- and county-wide murder rate has dropped 52.9% since recreational marijuana use was legalized in January. This is compared to the same period last year, a time frame encompassing Jan. 1 through April 30.
(Excerpt) Read more at mic.com ...
China had such colossal difficulty because it wasn’t Christian. Actually, America isn’t very Christian now either.
I think Chinese philosophy held China back technologically, (And thus made them subject to the dictates of English Guns) but I think what made Opium addiction such a devastating factor in China's history is the fact that the substance is physiologically addictive to humans.
But you touch on a point that I have been pondering for some years; The Role of Christianity in making this nation great. I've read quite a few articles (Starting with De Tocqueville) asserting that it is our Christianity which made us great, and i'm beginning to think it is indispensable to a functioning society.
I ran across this article some months back, and I noticed this one today.
I am coming around to the idea that Christianity (or something very like it.) is a requirement for a functional society. People do not realize how it affects social interaction throughout the whole system. Now that it is in decline I suspect society is going to get a lot more vicious.
Buddhism served an earthly role like that in some countries; and Hinduism in others. But neither has a robust gospel like Christianity does.
And this is really true. Your proverbial Diogenes would be hunting forever in vain unless he met Jesus. Nobody’s utterly honest, though some come much closer than others.
However the classic Christian gospel preaches a God of both heavenly ideals and of second chances. This God when embraced can remove great amounts of evil.
And, it’s not just a nice story. I’ve watched the spirits told about by the bible actually working as documented. Both evil (hellish) ones and heavenly ones.
This is known as the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy. Bad behavior from one person does not excuse or justify bad behavior for another. The fact that drunks do it too doesn't make it right. The question is, are these children of stoners victims? Yes. Yes they are victims. So are we taxpayers.
Are you ready to re-instate Prohibition because of those drunks?
And this is the fallacy known as "False Dilema." You present only two answers as if they are the only possible answers. I wouldn't mind heavier regulation of drunks, but we don't have to prohibit alcohol.
It appears to be a regular thing among segments of humanity to blame objects instead of people for bad behavior.
...
If a guy fails to do his duty by his children, don't blame him, blame the booze he was drinking or the pot he was smoking.
So by your thinking, if we give you heroin, you ought to still be able to get up and work a regular job and feed your children, right? Heroin wouldn't interfere with your functionality at all because it's just a substance, and we can't be blaming substances right?
No, in this case the substance is a deadly mind altering poison, and it WILL cause you to behave differently. It will in fact be responsible for the changes to someone's life after they start consuming it.
Tampering with brain chemistry is on a level a great deal above just owning a gun.
We just recently had a scumbag near here kill his toddler so he could play video games.
Lazy scumbags and rotten parents will be lazy scumbags and rotten parents no matter what form of recreation is available. Your argument is the same one used by gun-grabbers: blame the inanimate object rather than the individual abusing that object.
How about you do a quick web search and then tell us how many people are killed every year in drunk driving accidents. (And i'm not even asking about deaths from alcohol induced liver disease.)
And then you can tell us how things are so much better with that many people dying every year.
I have long suspected that an objective analysis of the pros and cons of prohibition would not work out so badly for prohibition.
So that's a long-winded yes-we-should-re-ban-alcohol.
The cons of Prohibition: 'Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
'Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition'
- Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
The pros of Prohibition: It made 'Progressives' and other nanny-statists feel good.
But in America when opium was legal, addiction was low and declining. The DEA says, "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." (http://web.archive.org/web/20110529221013/http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/06so.htm) 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Yes it was. There is no other point in bringing it up. Now you are just trying to walk it back.
That should have been obvious. It was used to show your own logical dissonance in which you apply two entirely different standards to the same principle.
I'm not writing the laws here. Drunks have been permitted by society since 1933. The nation made a deliberate choice to tolerate them. (And the 65,000 people who die every year from alcohol) And it's still beside the point. What drunks do, does not justify the same behavior from pot heads. Abandoning your children financially is still wrong whether it be done by drunks or pot heads.
If you are not willing to fully ban alcohol (Prohibition) because it is "bad behavior", but you DO want to ban marijuana because it is "bad behavior" (of the exact same nature as alcohol - intoxication) then you demonstrate that you are not operating from a fully logical and consistent standpoint.
Again with the false choice. Alcohol has been deliberately legalized by the nation. It's disposition has already been decided. What is still in flux is the legal disposition of Marijuana, and THAT is the topic under discussion now. Again, your entire argument is a childish "Well he did it too!" (Tu Quoque)
Bingo. You admit you apply two different standards for virtually identical behaviors. You've just buried yourself. And you misapplied the "False Dilemma" fallacy.
Are you on drugs? You presented a choice between total legalization of Alcohol and total prohibition. THAT is the false choice. I pointed out that stronger regulation of drunks would be a preferable third choice, but it is one which you didn't permit by the manner in which you asked the question.
If you are not willing to fully ban alcohol (Prohibition) because it is "bad behavior", but you DO want to ban marijuana because it is "bad behavior" (of the exact same nature as alcohol - intoxication) then you demonstrate that you are not operating from a fully logical and consistent standpoint.
I think i'm probably wasting my time by addressing your points logically, but it happens to be a habit. You are saying that Alcohol and Marijuana are treated differently, to which I say "Yes they are, but so what?" I feel no compulsion to be "fair" to Marijuana. I don't have to support making it legal just because Alcohol is.
Alcohol has been decided by society (and a constitutional amendment) to be tolerated, despite how much damage and misery it causes to some individuals. The nation had made the decision to tolerate the downside of Alcohol legalization, and whether or not I agree with it, that is the current status of the drug.
False analogy. decriminalization does not, in any way, involve anyone giving anyone anything, ever.
Way to miss the point. I was addressing your statement that we shouldn't ban substances because people do bad things and it's not the fault of the substances. This is such a nonsensical point when you attempt to apply it to MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCES that I thought you would be able comprehend it if I used an example like Heroin. "Giving" was not even part of the point.
Perhaps there is a guy out there who can do moderate amounts of heroin and still lead a normal life. I don't know. But if there is, then it is not the proper role of government to tell that guy he can't because some other guy might not handle it as well as he does.
On this you are completely wrong. It is most definitely the role of Government to insure it's own continued existence, and if it allows the people to become infected with drug addiction, that government will CEASE TO EXIST, and it will be replaced by one that will, most usually a dictatorship.
Legalized drugs is an existential threat to a society. (perhaps not pot, but harder drugs, certainly.)
Again, China went down this road. China Collapsed. China acquired a dictator who banned drugs. We will achieve the same fate if we follow the same path.
You just look at things on too small of a scale. You are still focused on yourself and others as individuals, and seemingly have no comprehension that you are intent upon losing a tragedy upon future society.
Oh, I see. Because someone killed their toddler over video games it justifies someone not feeding their child because of marijuana.
Glad you set me straight. I always thought that one type of bad behavior doesn't make another type of bad behavior right, but I see that I was wrong about this.
I suppose I can do any bad thing I like, just so long as someone else, somewhere is doing it too. Good to know.
Just out of curiosity.........why would you think they would go up?
No, it's a long winded "How about you be honest about the damage caused by Alcohol?" I see that you didn't, so I don't think i'll bother with the rest of your comment.
Is it so hard to look up the deaths and injuries caused by alcohol every year? Google works pretty well, and it's not all that difficult.
To hear your side talk about it there *IS* no downside to legalized Alcohol. Reality however differs quite a lot. I have quite a lot of experience with the down side of legal Alcohol.
My own father was a drunk who abandoned us when I was just a few years old. I have no memory of him. My uncle Billy was killed by a drunk driver, my other two uncles were badly injured in that same accident. My Grandfather died of sclerosis of the liver caused by excessive drinking. My Uncle Joe was shot and killed by his drunk wife while he was beating her while he was drunk. His son, my cousin Calvin, was killed because he was so drunk that a friend was taking him home, but he wanted to go back to drink more, and opened his door and fell out of the truck at highway speeds.
My Uncle John drank till the point of being unable to handle his own affairs, and so the state came in and took custody of him and put him in a nursing home. My Brother was a drunk for years, relying for his living on his military retirement, but he has straightened up in the last couple of years. A Woman I knew just died of sclerosis of the liver two weeks ago. A friend just died of the same thing three years ago. I know several people who are currently killing themselves with Alcohol. (and other drugs, including pot.)
I could go on and on regarding people whom I know to have been killed or damaged by alcohol, but I doubt a bigger list would make much of an impression on your belief that legal alcohol is completely victimless. I expect you to go on believing that there is no down side to legal alcohol even though this is very much not true.
Society has decided that 65,000 dead people per year is a small price to pay to keep the spirits flowing. Whom am I to suggest it isn't paradise?
The very link you cited says the exact opposite.
In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor’s care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed.
We also have this example from China.
.
.
between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Utterly false, but I expected no better from you. At best your research is poor, at worst it is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
No, it's a long winded "How about you be honest about the damage caused by Alcohol?" I see that you didn't,
I've never denied alcohol-related damage so I'm under no obligation to do any Googling.
so I don't think i'll bother with the rest of your comment.
The facts you're evading:
The cons of Prohibition: 'Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition.
'Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition'
- Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure
The pros of Prohibition: It made 'Progressives' and other nanny-statists feel good.
To hear your side talk about it there *IS* no downside to legalized Alcohol.
I don't know nor care who you think "my side" is - I'm responsible for only what I post.
The very link you cited says the exact opposite.
In 1880, many drugs, including opium and cocaine, were legal — and, like some drugs today, seen as benign medicine not requiring a doctor’s care and oversight. Addiction skyrocketed.
Their own numbers give the lie to their claim - as I noted and you omitted from your reply: "In 1880 [...] there were over 400,000 opium addicts in the U.S. [...] By 1900, about one American in 200 was either a cocaine or opium addict." 400,000 in a population of 50M is one in 125 - ergo, between 1880 and 1900 addiction declined.
Stop confusing them with facts! Their minds are made up!
Very interesting stuff. What about the less tangible effects? A general cultural decay or something similar? Or is it too soon to tell?
That’s my main concern with drug legalization of any kind. However, the hard numbers are quite compelling.
Laws can only be changed once? What a feeble dodge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.