Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Colorado marijuana revenues hit a new high
Washington Post ^ | Oct. 14, 2014

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS: cannabis; conservingdependency; marijuana; pot; potheads; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-253 next last
To: ConservingFreedom

Bogus information is your great. You’ve already been debunked on this.


121 posted on 10/20/2014 11:00:56 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Bogus information is your great.

Sorry, I don't speak whatever language that is.

You’ve already been debunked on this.

You're hallucinating - in fact, dhs12345 replied, "Good link".

122 posted on 10/20/2014 11:14:03 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Lol. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
123 posted on 10/20/2014 11:19:20 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom; dhs12345
His whole reply is sarcasm. And yes, my sentence was inscrutable in my last post.

Dhs12345 didn't just right. "Good link," as in whow, you got it right dude, have another bong. He wrote: "Interesting. I didn't see anything about their sampling, demographics, family income, etc. I didn't have time to read it. Good link, though. Thanks."

Look, dope for you is like a religion. It's a matter of faith. I cannot help you care about the law. I cannot help you care about the people who will become more active as pot smokers.

You previously posted that you were opposed to abortion, right? Tell me this. Are there more abortions now that abortion is legal than there were when it was not legal? Hmmmm? Didn't the pro-abortion lobby tell us abortion would be safe but rare? Now, you tell us pot won't be a bigger problem. I think you've an agenda to do more harm than good with your pot advocacy.

124 posted on 10/20/2014 11:24:35 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre; dhs12345
His whole reply is sarcasm. [...] Dhs12345 didn't just right. "Good link," as in whow, you got it right dude, have another bong. He wrote: "Interesting. I didn't see anything about their sampling, demographics, family income, etc. I didn't have time to read it. Good link, though. Thanks."

dhs12345, was your "Good link" sarcastic? (If so, I missed it.)

At any rate, "I didn't have time to read it" negates any possibility of that post having been a "debunking." FYI, dhs12345, demographics are in table A.1 and sampling methodology in Appendix B.

I cannot help you care about the law.

I care enough about the supreme law of the land to want to repeal legislation that violates that supreme law.

I cannot help you care about the people who will become more active as pot smokers.

I should "care about" them by supporting their imprisonment?

You previously posted that you were opposed to abortion, right? Tell me this. Are there more abortions now that abortion is legal than there were when it was not legal? Hmmmm? Didn't the pro-abortion lobby tell us abortion would be safe but rare? Now, you tell us pot won't be a bigger problem.

There's a good chance there will be more post smoking - it's unlikely that there will be a bigger problem e.g. with welfare. Adults exercising their liberties, even in ways I consider unwise, is not in and of itself a problem.

125 posted on 10/20/2014 11:37:21 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

Then you’re a utopian libertarian oblivious to reason, facts, or consequences.


126 posted on 10/20/2014 11:39:50 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

And were there more abortions when people like you insisted that that would be fine to be legal? Can you answer that one?


127 posted on 10/20/2014 11:46:26 AM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
it's unlikely that there will be a bigger problem e.g. with welfare.

Then you’re a utopian libertarian oblivious to reason, facts, or consequences.

You have yet to present any. Here's some reason: few if any people responsible enough to avoid pot when it's illegal will suddenly become irresponsible enough to not only use pot but render themselves unemployable (whether through employer testing or stupefaction) when it's legal.

128 posted on 10/20/2014 11:52:19 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Are there more abortions now that abortion is legal than there were when it was not legal?

Yes. Abortion is much harder to hide than personal-use amounts of pot.

129 posted on 10/20/2014 11:54:52 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

Are you opposed to abortion?


130 posted on 10/20/2014 12:05:03 PM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

You state, “few if any people responsible enough to avoid pot when it’s illegal will suddenly become irresponsible enough to not only use pot but render themselves unemployable (whether through employer testing or stupefaction) when it’s legal.”
That’s not a fact. That’s your supposition, and I’d say more people have abortions now that it’s legal than would have if it were illegal. Similarly, though you’d never admit it, more people will use pot if it becomes legal.


131 posted on 10/20/2014 12:12:24 PM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom
BTW, when I use all caps, I am not yelling. Just trying to emphasize the key points.

My response....

My point here is that we can BS all day long, but out in the cold, cruel, real world, the truth will be proven out by the businesses that try to make money growing, selling, distributing and in retail.

You see — the businesses are VULNERABLE TO LAWSUITS if THEY CLAIM THAT POT IS NOT BAD FOR YOU or in any way try to diminish the fact that pot will hurt your health.

Important point: the tobacco companies vulnerability was not because they sold a so-called “harmful product” but the fact that they knew about the health risks and then tried to hide it from the public and consumers.

So, to answer my own challenge — the pot businesses will NOT make any claims that pot is not harmful. In fact, it would probably be wise for them to reference some third party, government study proving that it is indeed bad for you to limit their liability.

132 posted on 10/20/2014 12:14:07 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Are you opposed to abortion?

Yes.

133 posted on 10/20/2014 12:15:58 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

And you think it should be illegal, right?


134 posted on 10/20/2014 12:18:29 PM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
Here's some reason: few if any people responsible enough to avoid pot when it's illegal will suddenly become irresponsible enough to not only use pot but render themselves unemployable (whether through employer testing or stupefaction) when it's legal.

That’s not a fact.

Did I say it was?

I’d say more people have abortions now that it’s legal than would have if it were illegal.

I've already agreed and noted, "Abortion is much harder to hide than personal-use amounts of pot."

Similarly, though you’d never admit it, more people will use pot if it becomes legal. [emphasis added]

Just a few posts ago I said, "There's a good chance there will be more post smoking". Is something messing with your short-term memory?

135 posted on 10/20/2014 12:20:02 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: elhombrelibre
And you think it should be illegal, right?

Right - it inherently violates the rights of an unwilling party, unlike the selling, buying, or using of pot.

136 posted on 10/20/2014 12:21:16 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
the pot businesses will NOT make any claims that pot is not harmful.

Probably not. So what?

137 posted on 10/20/2014 12:22:53 PM PDT by ConservingFreedom (A goverrnment strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

You say “so what” to the fact that the pot industry won’t admit anything is harmful. The point is the science isn’t there. It’s like when we didn’t have the science on smoking cigarettes. Do you have any family members addicted to marijuana?


138 posted on 10/20/2014 12:31:53 PM PDT by elhombrelibre (Against Obama. Against Putin. Pro-freedom. Pro-US Constitution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ConservingFreedom

Actually. I found it interesting and a concern. Why? Because my son and his friends have to live in that environment(where pot is readily available).

And pot will be even more readily available now that possession is legal here in Colorado and especially with stores opening everywhere. Not quite as many as liquor stores yet. As I mentioned, a kid can always find an adult who is willing to buy for them.

Plus it has lost the stigma that it used to have because of the medical pretense and the fact that it is now legal and people like those on FR claiming that it isn’t harmful.

So the study in the link is probably way understating what it will be like in a year or so. I pray for our children.


139 posted on 10/20/2014 12:36:20 PM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

Tell your kids its not okay and that you will disown them if they use pot.


140 posted on 10/20/2014 12:39:55 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-253 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson