Posted on 10/15/2014 10:34:50 AM PDT by Wolfie
Colorado marijuana revenues hit a new high
New figures from the Colorado Department of Revenue show that recreational marijuana sales continued to climb in August, the most recent month for which data are available. Recreational sales totaled approximately $34.1 million in August, up from $29.3 million the previous month.
Medical marijuana also jumped sharply in August, after several months of flat or declining sales. Medical sales figures were just under the recreational total, at $33.4 million. One goal of creating Colorado's recreational marijuana market is to shift customers away from the medical market.
The numbers suggest that work remains to be done on that front. Part of the challenge is that medical marijuana is taxed at lower rates than recreational marijuana, leading to significant price differences.
Total tax revenues from medical and recreational marijuana continue to edge upward. The state took in about $7.5 million in revenues from both markets in August, or about $45 million year-to-date.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You run along and like, wow, smoke a bong, man.
My point is that a so called libertarian dumps his beliefs when life becomes very difficult due drugs. I have seen it.
And his problem becomes every one else’s problem.
They didn’t mention size but the fact that it is unfiltered is key. And the fact that the smoke is inhaled and intentionly held in the lung for the most effect. Two key points. I would suspect that the lung association would know what they are talking abut too.
And the bs that it isn’t harmful or not as harmful as cig is wrong. Kids are listening and hear you loud and clear.
“a so called libertarian dumps his beliefs when life becomes very difficult due drugs. I have seen it.”
I don’t doubt it’s happened. What’s that prove?
Drugs=bad.
Turns a productive libertarian into a blubbering socialist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/opinion/brooks-weed-been-there-done-that.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/opinion/brooks-weed-been-there-done-that.html?_r=0
“The important point is that without the drug addiction, many people might be self sufficient and independent. This is common sense.”
Exactly. Same thing with alcoholism and even obesity from too much fast food.
Do you want to regulate alcohol and cheeseburgers?
“And finally getting back to one of the issues you’re struggling to evade: if, as you falsely suppose, I were a “pothead” who had made tradeoffs in his own life, how is that any of your or government’s business?”
I’m going to thumbnail this for you. You’re probably going to want to copy and save this.
I’m the kind of conservative that believes that anything I disagree with should be against the law.
The reason I believe this is because I know everything. I know that I know I know everything by how strongly I feel about it.
For instance. All New York Yankee fans should be jailed. I hate the Yankees. I’m sure god will punish them in the hereafter but until then I think stiff prison terms are in order.
Another way that I know I’m always right is that I never ...ever change my mind about anything. It doesn’t matter to me what scientific proof you have or what some egg head professor somewhere says in a long term scientific study.
After I “Just Know” something, that’s it. It’s known then.
When I was 4 years old my great grandmother told me you make a snake by putting the hair from a horses tail in a pan of water. She got some horsehair and tried it. When she’d shake the pan the hair would serpentine in the water. She told me it was a snake.
That’s how I know snakes come from horses shedding tail hair in water.
I don’t care what some biologists says my great grandmother told me the truth.
As a conservative I hate big government. Unless big government is busting balls on something I disagree with. Then it’s OK.
I hope this cleared up why I’m right and your wrong>
You may want to try watching the documentary “Reefer Madness” it’s all right there.
AND YES THIS IS SNARK.
See my user name.
In a few cases I don't doubt drugs have played a key role in that - as have other misfortunes in a few other cases. Still proves nothing about what public policy a conservative should favor; the job of government is not to prevent adults from making choices that might turn out badly.
"So, like the vast majority of people who try drugs, we aged out. We left marijuana behind. I don’t have any problem with somebody who gets high from time to time, but I guess, on the whole, I think being stoned is not a particularly uplifting form of pleasure"
Yup - contrary to the Reefer Madness blather on this thread, they didn't turn into heroin addicts, wards of the state, or zombies standing in the rain. I think playing video games or watching reality shows or professional wrestling "is not a particularly uplifting form of pleasure" either - but that's no reason to imprison those who do, or those who supply those non-uplifting pleasures.
"I’d say that in healthy societies government wants to subtly tip the scale to favor temperate, prudent, self-governing citizenship. [...] In legalizing weed, citizens of Colorado are, indeed, enhancing individual freedom. But"
No but - individual freedom IS self-governance ... the alternative is one group of citizens governing a different group. And there's nothing "subtle" about imprisonment; if one wants to "subtly tip the scale" against pot, one will support sin taxes, warning labels, and public service messages - none of which (except, if taken to excess, the taxes) will help enrich criminals as the illegality of pot does.
I’m the kind of conservative that believes that anything I disagree with should be against the law. The reason I believe this is because I know everything. I know that I know I know everything by how strongly I feel about it.
For instance. All New York Yankee fans should be jailed. I hate the Yankees. I’m sure god will punish them in the hereafter but until then I think stiff prison terms are in order.
Another way that I know I’m always right is that I never ...ever change my mind about anything. It doesn’t matter to me what scientific proof you have or what some egg head professor somewhere says in a long term scientific study.
After I “Just Know” something, that’s it. It’s known then.
When I was 4 years old my great grandmother told me you make a snake by putting the hair from a horses tail in a pan of water. She got some horsehair and tried it. When she’d shake the pan the hair would serpentine in the water. She told me it was a snake.
That’s how I know snakes come from horses shedding tail hair in water.
I don’t care what some biologists says my great grandmother told me the truth.
As a conservative I hate big government. Unless big government is busting balls on something I disagree with. Then it’s OK.
I hope this cleared up why I’m right and your wrong>
You may want to try watching the documentary “Reefer Madness” it’s all right there.
Nicely done! Captures the Drug Warrior 'thinking' to a T.
Yeah, only one in six becomes addicted now, presumably with less use than will occur if it’s legal. No problem.
Please provide a link to any of the following that make exactly the claims that you and others have made — that pot is less harmful as cigs or not harmful at all:
1. Growers.
2. Producers.
3. Distributors.
4. Retail shops.
And it can't be a loosely affiliated group of pro-pot entities. It must be directly and financially tied to the above entities. Either funded by or somehow financially tied.
Why, because by making the claims that you and others are making, if you were a business making money off of those “claims,” that later turned out to be wrong, you would be open to litigation. Just like the tobacco manufactures of a few years ago.
We have the history of tobacco to refer to. And the tobacco companies made similar claims when it was clear that tobacco was indeed harmful.
Also, these links must be very clear. No mights or maybes or we don't know right now, or further studies are necessary.
Hey, you’re confused. He makes unsubstantiated assertions and drills other for empirical data to substantiate the obvious. He doesn’t answer questions.
The available evidence is against that presumption: since well before any state had legalized pot, teens have reported that they could get it more easily than beer or cigarettes ... which is to be expected since legal sellers card and illegal sellers don't.
In post #43 I told you that I say the opposite of "pot is not harmful" - why are you still pretending otherwise?
What I said is, "The clinical and epidemiological evidence against tobacco is stronger than that against pot." And YOUR link said: "frequent marijuana smokers can have many [they did NOT say ALL] of the same respiratory problems experienced by people who smoke tobacco. These include coughing and phlegm production on most days, wheezing, bronchitis, and greater risk of lung infection [they did NOT put emphysema or lung cancer in this list]."
Why, because by making the claims that you and others are making, if you were a business making money off of those “claims,” that later turned out to be wrong, you would be open to litigation.
I am not a business and I know of no such statements by pot businesses. What's your point - do you think any self-serving statement a business does not make is thereby proved to be not true?
Seems you never present your “available evidence.” We’re just supposed to take the word of a “former” pot head who has an agenda to make pot legal regardless of the consequences.
Seems you never present your “available evidence.”
Wrong as usual - I presented it in post #59.
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.