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 ...
There are plenty of pack-a-day tobacco smokers - far fewer 4-joint-a-day pot smokers.
But note the absence of emphysema and lung cancer from this list.
Lung cancer — Wrong.
“There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana.”
And yet YOUR PAGE does NOT say that pot causes lung cancer - because there's no direct evidence for it. In sufficient quantities, almost everything is a "cancer-causing chemical" - because in lab-rat giga-doses it kills off cells so fast that the body goes into hyper-cell-growth mode.
Please.
Gov’t = Uncle Sugar = ‘daddy’ = $$$ = welfare.
Those louses on welfare (excluding those not on the role since the start/job-loss BECAUSE of gov’t) are into drugs because they have ‘all the free time in the world’ and their culture holds up the Benjamins in high-esteem...
Kill the great social ‘net and you kill two birds with one stone.
Do you smoke pot?
That just means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect.
the abuse of it is starting at an earlier age
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.
Do you smoke pot?
Not that it's relevant to any of the points I made ... but I was a pot smoker decades ago.
Have anything to say about the points I made?
It will never help Joe taxpayer.
It will never help Joe taxpayer.
Spending cuts are rarer than hen's teeth ... but at least those resources will be freed up to concentrate on real crimes with actual victims, which is a win.
Cancer? Don't be ridiculous.
>>BTW, they probably made the same claims about cigs and tobacco.<<
Also, since tobacco and pot are plants, they probably possess the same materials when burned — carbon/tar, etc. So COMMON SENSE would dictate that smoking a joint is much like smoking unfiltered cigarettes.
So just like cigs, if you inhale the carcinogens, you increase your chances of getting cancer. Unless you claim that there is no increased risk of getting cancer if you smoke marijuana. Or the risk is less than smoking filtered cigs.
I get that you’re happy that pots stronger and that it’s easy for kids to get. You seem like an advocate for strong pot and stoned kids, or at least indifferent to the consequences.
There are plenty of pack-a-day tobacco smokers - far fewer 4-joint-a-day pot smokers.
The point still is that you have to smoke a lot less pot to get the same effect.
The point still is that almost nobody smokes even that amount of pot.
But note the absence of emphysema and lung cancer from this list.
Lung cancer — Wrong.
“There are 33 cancer-causing chemicals contained in marijuana.”
And yet YOUR PAGE does NOT say that pot causes lung cancer - because there's no direct evidence for it. In sufficient quantities, almost everything is a "cancer-causing chemical" - because in lab-rat giga-doses it kills off cells so fast that the body goes into hyper-cell-growth mode.
Cancer? Don't be ridiculous.
What's ridiculous is your presenting your sneer as evidence.
>>BTW, they probably made the same claims about cigs and tobacco.<<
Who do? There is direct evidence for tobacco causing lung cancer.
Also, since tobacco and pot are plants, they probably possess the same materials when burned — carbon/tar, etc. So COMMON SENSE would dictate that smoking a joint is much like smoking unfiltered cigarettes.
The cannabis plant, unlike the tobacco plant, contains cancer-fighting chemicals.
Drugs = welfare = drugs.
They can't hold down a job because they live for their next fix and they are willing to lie, cheat and steal, pawn all of their possessions, destroy all relationships and people who care about them, and live on the street, all to get their drugs.
The basic needs and instincts for basic survival (consuming food, procreation, maintaining health, love, relationships, family) are replaced by a chemical that short-circuits the brain. Pretty insidious.
That just means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect.
the abuse of it is starting at an earlier age
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.
Do you smoke pot?
Not that it's relevant to any of the points I made ... but I was a pot smoker decades ago.
Have anything to say about the points I made?
I get that you’re happy that pots stronger
There is no reason to be unhappy about it, given the undisputed fact that it means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect. Or are you a big fan of lung disease?
and that it’s easy for kids to get. You seem like an advocate for strong pot and stoned kids, or at least indifferent to the consequences.
As I have shown, legalization for adults would mean fewer stoned kids.
Have anything - other than baseless personal attacks - to say about the points I made?
As I said, "even if there is a correlation, how do we know it's not the welfare that causes the drug use - or that both being on welfare and using drugs are caused by a third factor such as a poor attitude toward life?"
The important point is that without the drug addiction, many people might be self sufficient and independent. This is common sense.
Certainly, there would still be people looking for a free ride. But it is very hard to deny that drugs can be debilitating to the point where a person can’t or won’t work.
it is very hard to deny that drugs can be debilitating to the point where a person can’t or won’t work.
Yes they can - but the question here is whether after legalization we'd be picking up the tab for many more of those exercising their rights to smoke - and the answer is that there's no evidence that we would.
Which is exactly where they'd likely be without any drug involvement. But lot's of them are determined to get their load on. Were it not pot it'd be paint huffing, or stealing dads booze, or, or , or….
And BTW, plenty of Jocks are morons of the highest order.
Wolfie, I have reached the point where I say , do away with treatment centers, legalize every narcotic drug under the sun and let nature take its course.
And where the Libertarian argument falls apart — because, by practicing their right to do drugs, we all end up paying for their “right” in the form of welfare. So, no they are not “just harming themselves” but are a burden to the rest of us.
Chances are yes. It is a pretty good bet.
I have logic, you have unsupported claims. I'll just let the readers decide.
Okay. And your point is understood. After all, why would someone turn to drugs in the first place. Maybe to fill a void. Also, maybe because of peer pressure or lack of stigma or misleading information helps overcome their resistance to using.
But I agree to disagree, lets let the readers decide.
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.