Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Thursday March 02 2017, @05:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the ideology-vs-scientific-analysis dept.

The Center for American Progress reports

On [February 27], days after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters to expect stricter enforcement of federal pot law, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recycled discredited drug war talking points in remarks of his own.

"I believe it's an unhealthy practice, and current levels of THC in marijuana are very high compared to what they were a few years ago, and we're seeing real violence around that", Sessions said. "Experts are telling me there's more violence around marijuana than one would think and there's big money involved."

In reality, violent crime rates tend to decrease where marijuana is legalized.

Denver saw a 2.2 percent drop in violent crime rates in the year after the first legal recreational cannabis sales in Colorado. Overall property crime dropped by 8.9 percent [PDF] in the same period there, according to figures from the Drug Policy Alliance. In Washington, violent crime rates dropped by 10 percent [PDF] from 2011 to 2014. Voters legalized recreational marijuana there in 2012.

Medical marijuana laws, which have a longer track record for academics than recreational pot legalization, are also associated with stable or falling violent crime rates. In one 2014 study of the 11 states that legalized medical pot from 1990 to 2006, there was no increase in the seven major categories of violent crime and "some evidence of decreasing rates of some types of violent crime, namely homicide and assault."

[...] Elsewhere in his remarks, Sessions unwittingly made the case against treating pot activity like serious crime. "You can't sue somebody for drug debt". he said. "The only way to get your money is through strong-arm tactics, and violence tends to follow that."

Legalizing, regulating, and taxing the sale of marijuana is the surest way to remedying that exact tendency for pot commerce to trigger violent score-settling. Legalization invites pot business into the light, granting cannabusinesses at least partial access to official modes of recourse when they are defrauded.

8 states and the District of Columbia have legalised marijuana for recreational use.
Ever see anyone use cannabis and become more aggressive rather than more mellow?

Note: ThinkProgress redirects all accesses of their pages and will attach tracking numbers. I have made sure that those are not in the URLs.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:36PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:36PM (#474074)

    When will people start to fucking understand that ABSTAINING IS VOTING? Do you truly not understand that a very large portion of that 74% are not giving an opinion, but a vote of a no confidence in the system?

    No. Abstaining is not voting. The reason is because there are numerous reasons why a person wouldn't vote. For example:
    1) They love both major candidates and have no problem with either one winning.
    2) They were apathetic and didn't see how the president could affect their lives for better or worse.
    3) They tried to vote, but were unable to (couldn't find transportation, were confused with date or location, etc)
    4) They tried to vote, but were denied (improper identification, racial profiling, etc)
    5) They hate all candidates and think the system is rigged and pointless

    Each of those has a different connotation, message, and "way to fix it" if that was a goal.

    A vote of "no confidence" (keeping in mind that that is a technical term and not applicable how the US government works) is to vote and put in a write-in of some kind. A lesser version which is probably more productive is to vote for a third candidate who aligns with what you believe. For example, I guarantee you right now that if Stein or Johnson had gotten 20% of the popular vote, politics would be playing out FAR differently than it is right now.

    Frankly, if you didn't vote, your vote didn't count. That's not to say you should be dismissed, but you don't count and politicans care far less about you. Ideologically it's because they don't know how to read your confusing message, and pragmatically it's because they have little to gain from your support. You could become a rabid fan and vote in the future, but as an retailer will tell you, it is far easier and more profitable to get somebody who has bought $100 shoes in the past to come in and buy another pair than to try to get a completely new customer in to buy their first pair.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:21PM

    by edIII (791) on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:21PM (#474107)

    Nope. Voting is just the beginning. You claim that they have no information about me based on the vote. WRONG.

    When the vote is on Monday, I'm the one there the next week calling on his staff in his office to tell him my DEMANDS upon him as a CONSTITUENT.

    That is far more effective than the fucking vote. The vote was bullshit from the beginning, the politician knew that, and only had to dupe you enough to get in. What happens afterward is what truly informs him about how his constituency feels.

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.