Colorado marijuana revenues hit a new high

Washington Post ^ | Oct. 14, 2014

[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.

[ConservingFreedom]

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 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.

And your point is understood. After all, why would someone turn to drugs in the first place.

Right - and since there are multiple independent theories that could explain any correlation between drug use and being on welfare, it follows that such a correlation (if one exists, and no such evidence has been posted here) doesn't support any particular one of those multiple theories.

[dhs12345]

Actually. The point is that Libertarians on welfare should be an oxymoron but apparently it happens when drugs are involved.

[ConservingFreedom]

The point is that Libertarians on welfare should be an oxymoron but apparently it happens when drugs are involved.

That's not "the point" - it's nonsense you just now dragged in because your arguments on the real points have collapsed. And this new one of yours is no better ... being a pot users is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for being a libertarian.

[elhombrelibre]

Why do you consider me stating the facts from your comments to be “baseless personal attacks?” You admit that you favor legalizing pot. You blithely champion it’s legalization with breezy, inane, and insouciant comments as an amelioration of the social problems we already have. I’d say you yourself are the main person making personal attack on you that you should be worried about. Besides being a champion of adults being allowed to get stoned and be dopy, what other conservative causes do you believe in? Seriously, how does your pro-dope outlook fit with a conservative worldview?

[ConservingFreedom]

Unfortunately, today’s pot is much stronger than it was thirty years ago,

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.

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?

Why do you consider me stating the facts from your comments to be “baseless personal attacks?”

This statement of yours is not a "fact" but a baseless personal attack: "you’re happy that pots [...] easy for kids to get."

You admit that you favor legalizing pot. You blithely champion it’s legalization with breezy, inane, and insouciant

Your tendentious adjectives are also not "facts."

comments as an amelioration of the social problems we already have.

Where did I say legalization would be an amelioration of any social problem? Your debate is with the voices in your head - maybe medicinal marijuana would help with that.

Besides being a champion of adults being allowed to get stoned and be dopy, what other conservative causes do you believe in?

Just to name a few:

Opposing the minimum wage: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3215561/posts?page=3#3
Border control: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3215057/posts?page=5#5
Opposing PC nonsense: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3214015/posts?page=96#96
Gun rights: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3213333/posts?page=6#6
Pro-life: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3213184/posts?page=6#6
Opposing Islamic jihad: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3212820/posts?page=4#4

Seriously, how does your pro-dope outlook fit with a conservative worldview?

Legalization - which is no more "pro-dope" than legal alcohol is "pro-booze" - is pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, and pro-freedom - all of which are FR conservative values.

[Svartalfiar]

Why the hell else would you drink the stuff? If you are trying to quench your thirst, you would drink some soda or water.

Soda is terrible for you, excepting the rare sugar-cane sodas. Beer is much healthier. And, it tastes better.

[elhombrelibre]

When the state legalizes something (alcohol or drugs), it not only removes the legal consequences but it also takes away the moral stigma from the use of the formerly illegal product. I implies that the state sanctions that use. Meanwhile, the tradeoffs that are made ignored by dilettantes, sophists, and sophomoric ninnies.

[Svartalfiar]

You obviously missed the point. You DON'T HAVE TO SMOKE MJ AS MUCH to get the same exposure. Actually you only have to smoke it 1/4 the amount — four cigs versus one joint, 8 cigs versus two joints.

Is that the same? For most people I know who smoke, one joint is a decent bit bigger (volume and time to smoke) than a single cigarette. And everyone who makes one makes em slightly differently, bigger/smaller, longer/shorter. It's like comparing cigarettes to cigars.

Maybe try comparing it by weight? That will give you an actual direct comparison, though I don't think I've ever really seen any studies that get that detailed. And yes, the filtered/unfiltered makes a difference, although marijuana is generally a lot more natural than cigarette tobacco, and has less additives, chemicals, etc. Also, how would marijuana compare to pipe/cigar smoking? those are unfiltered, but generally not inhaled.


Defies logic. Please provide your stat. If there are 10 liquor stores within a few miles of my home versus one pot dealer downtown, liquor is going to be more available. That was my experience. The fact that I was underage was a minor inconvenience because legal adults provided what I needed.

You are correct there, but marijuana has the advantage where no one cares about your age. Since it's not legal at all (most places), everyone who sells it won't really care about the age of who buys it. Liquor/beer is easier for the middleman to get, whereas marijuana is easier to get from the middleman. And like one of you said, the either-or here will completely vary from state to state and city to city.

[ConservingFreedom]

(I see you've abandoned your previous tack of baseless personal attacks and debating the voices in your head. Shrewd move.)

When the state legalizes something (alcohol or drugs), it not only removes the legal consequences but it also takes away the moral stigma from the use of the formerly illegal product. I implies that the state sanctions that use.

By that 'logic' the state also sanctions the legal activities of cheating on one's fiancee and insulting one's spouse. Sane people know that this ridiculous conclusion invalidates your ridiculous premise ... but then, sane people don't let government define their morality.

Meanwhile, the tradeoffs that are made ignored by dilettantes, sophists, and sophomoric ninnies.

What do you claim is being "traded off" against what else? Can the government legitimately trade away individual liberties for some other good allegedly obtainable thereby?

[elhombrelibre]

I didn’t abandon anything. Are you stoned now or just keen to be obnoxious about dope?

[elhombrelibre]

Do you have a job? I mean a real one, not one where you’re underemployed? I think if you exam your life you’ll see some of the tradeoffs you made as a result of being a pothead. You can see too in your own snarky, solipsistic, and smug persistent posts that the dopers worldview is inane and much ado about nothing other than you wanting to seem erudite and buzzing along. You made the tradeoff, dude, wow.

[ConservingFreedom]

I didn’t abandon anything.

Nothing in your post #87 even attempts to counter any of the rebuttals in my post #85 of your previous posts - that's abandonment.

[ConservingFreedom]

Do you have a job? I mean a real one,

I'm a senior data analyst working with Big Data.

I think if you exam your life you’ll see some of the tradeoffs you made as a result of being a pothead.

As I already told you when you first attempted to redirect from issues to personalities, I haven't smoked pot in decades.

You can see too in your own snarky, solipsistic, and smug persistent posts

Adjectives still aren't rebuttals. But that last one, "persistent," reveals your real beef: I slap down all the nonsense you post.

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?

[elhombrelibre]

Using your logic, we’d not enforce any laws. After all, people break laws. You say you used to break the pot laws. You say that kids break them now. You say it’s a good thing that pot is stronger since people can get stoned faster. People often speed while driving. Would you favor not enforcing those laws? People break other drug laws. Would you favor legalizing all dope? People routinely break those laws. Using your logic, it’s not any else’s business. How about driving while stoned on pot? Is that okay? In your view, the republican values and virtues of sobriety and good health needed for self-government are trumped by the dippy pro-pot views of the 1960’s. Addiction, and its increase in the last thirty years, is a social problem that is the self-evident trade off for libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs. You just believe the enforcement of the laws is worse than allowing legal dope use. Yet you don’t even acknowledge there is a self-evident trade off. Instead, you copy and paste everthing written as if your trite old arguments are somehow novel and profound.

[ConservingFreedom]

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?

Using your logic, we’d not enforce any laws. After all, people break laws.

Nowhere did I argue or imply that pot laws shouldn't be enforced for the reason that people break them ... certainly not in my text above, which is about how pot laws are invalid because they try to prevent a pothead "tradeoff" whose prevention is none of government's business.

My only reference to the number of pot-law-breakers was in the context of rebutting the claim that legalization would lead to zombies standing in the rain: "For decades now, pot has been used by tens of millions of Americans every year - how many zombies standing in the rain have you seen? Me, none."

You say you used to break the pot laws.

Yes - what's your point? Have you never broken a law - never, say, exceeded the legal speed limit?

You say that kids break them now.

Do you deny it?

Neither of those observations add up to, 'don't enforce pot laws because people break them.'

You say it’s a good thing that pot is stronger since people can get stoned faster.

Wrong as usual; I said nothing about how fast anyone got stoned but about how much lung damage they sustained along the way.

People often speed while driving. Would you favor not enforcing those laws? People break other drug laws. Would you favor legalizing all dope? People routinely break those laws. Using your logic, it’s not any else’s business. How about driving while stoned on pot? Is that okay?

Acts that neither violate the rights of other nor pose a clear and present danger of such violation are not anyone else’s business (regardless of the frequency with which laws against those acts are broken); speeding is a clear and present danger, drug use is not.

In your view, the republican values and virtues of sobriety and good health needed for self-government are trumped by the dippy pro-pot views of the 1960’s.

The republican values and virtues of sobriety and good health needed for self-government are not creatable by government, and none of the Founders ever said they were.

Addiction, and its increase in the last thirty years,

Have any evidence for that claim?

is a social problem that is the self-evident trade off for libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs.

You claim addiction has increased in the last thirty years and is a consequence of libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs - so it follows that libertine and lawless approaches to all drugs have increased in the last thirty years. How can this be, since a sharp escalation in the War on Drugs was declared thirty years ago and anti-drug spending and imprisonment have risen for most if not all of those thirty years?

You just believe the enforcement of the laws is worse than allowing legal dope use.

You finally got something right.

Yet you don’t even acknowledge there is a self-evident trade off.

The only trade-off you've bothered to identify, I haven't denied but have identified as none of government's business to make the opposite trade-off: namely, Joe and John's liberty for John's employability.

Instead, you copy and paste everthing written as if your trite old arguments are somehow novel and profound.

I copy and paste to preserve context, since you flit from one failed argument to another. If you don't find my posts novel, it's because all your tired rationalizations for pot criminalization have been rebutted many times before.

[elhombrelibre]

In post #71 you wrote:

"That just means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect."

In post #95, you wrote:

"I copy and paste to preserve context, since you flit from one failed argument to another."

Apparently, you believe everyone else also "flit[s] from one failed argument to another."

Talking with you reminds me of A.J. Soprano. You come off as childish and foolishly arrogant in your pro-pot posts.

[ConservingFreedom]

In post #71 you wrote:

"That just means it takes less unhealthy smoke to get the same effect."

In post #95, you wrote:

"I copy and paste to preserve context, since you flit from one failed argument to another."

Apparently, you believe everyone else also "flit[s] from one failed argument to another."

Since you don't say how those two quotations supposedly relate to each other - or to the claim you go on to make about what I apparently believe - I'm going to have to guess; feel free to clarify your intended meaning if I guess wrong.

I'm guessing that the first two quotations are meant to indicate that I changed arguments about pot strength since post #71. This is incorrect - although stronger pot does mean people can get stoned faster, I said nothing in post #71 about how fast anyone got stoned (contrary to your claim in post #94) but addressed only the lesser amount of smoke and its lesser unhealthiness.

I'm guessing that your claim about "everyone else" is based on your noticing that I preserve context in other exchanges and concluding that it must be for the same reason I've done it here. This also is incorrect - there are other reasons in other exchanges that I preserve context (such as making clear which part of my post is a reply to which part of the other FReeper's previous post ... and, for the convenience of others following the exchange, which part of his post was a reply to which part of my still-earlier post).

So ... anything to say about the issues at hand?

[elhombrelibre]

You’re not a very keen observer of the obvious, are you? I show you two great examples of your own misstatements and you come up with some lame nonsense to dismiss the obvious fact that you’re not even remembering what you wrote. You just ramble on with more wearisome balderdash and pretend you’re Aristotle and Plato combined. I think you’re forced to copy and paste everything too because you’ve lost the ability to remember what was written otherwise, a possible outcome from your admitted pot using days. And lastly, why do you suppose the US military doesn’t allow any drug use including the drug you champion?

[ConservingFreedom]

I show you two great examples of your own misstatements and you come up with some lame nonsense

You got spanked and aren't even bright enough to realize it - sad.

While leaving a trail of your failed arguments abandoned in your wake, I might add.

why do you suppose the US military doesn’t allow any drug use including the drug you champion?

Do you think that all citizens should be forcibly held to the same standards as the US military?

I don't "champion" pot but only the freedom of adults to use it if they choose; I've referred in this thread to pot's unhealthy smoke"and lung damage, and replied to "pot is not that harmful" with "I say the opposite."

[elhombrelibre]

The only thing you spanked was yourself with your insouciant and irresponsible advocacy.