SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 02 2017, @08:38PM (11 children)
-1 Stupid.
Your opinion is utterly worthless if you don't vote. There's no way anyone can figure out what you want or what your grievance is if you don't bother to make your voice heard. And no, what you vote on is NOT controlled by those in power, not completely. You always have the option to write-in a name, including "Mickey Mouse". People who do that at least are making their voice heard, that they bothered to show up, that they care enough to spend the time needed to vote, but are completely unhappy with the choices on the ballot. Your lazy ass couldn't even be bothered to do that.
You don't have to vote for one of the mainstream choices. You can always vote for one of the numerous third-party choices, or you can write in a name on the ballot, or even cast a ballot with nothing selected. If 2/3 of the voters cast ballots with "Mickey Mouse" on them, that would be a real wake-up call, and cast the political system into disarray, causing real changes. 2/3 of the voters not even bothering to cast a vote doesn't do that; they're just ignored as lazy, apathetic fools. And if 2/3 of the voters cast ballots for some 3rd-part candidate no one expected to win, we'd also have real changes, just like we're getting now with Trump, where a whole bunch of voters cast votes for someone the establishment and those in power never expected to have a chance of winning, and now he has (and the results aren't pretty). So while lazy fools like you can't be bothered to vote, even for an outsider, people who were angry and *could* be bothered to vote now have voted for a different outsider they like who'll (IMO) cause real problems for the country.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by edIII on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:28PM (6 children)
Sorry dude, but fuck you. My vote to abstain is not worthless.
I'm not lazy. You can go fuck yourself with that. When somebody is so angry and disillusioned that they REFUSE to participate in a illusion of a choice, that is not laziness. That is the conscious recognition that you are playing in a rigged game where the only purpose of it is serving those in power.
You want to claim laziness? Where the fuck were you 4 months after you voted? Did you write in a letter? Did you have weekly conversations with their staff about your demands as a constituent? Did you participate in canvassing neighborhoods with flyers? Have you been at a protest? Firing off a single vote doesn't fucking impress me at all, and YOU PEOPLE are the fucking problem.
Voting is just one tiny part of the participation in government, and is the most pointless out all of them when we DO NOT CONTROL THE WHO AND WHAT OF VOTING. We don't control that.
The only exception is when we get to vote on a what and not a who, and even in those cases, you still see laws that are proposed with lies and mental games to trick people into voting for one thing or another. Or some rider exists where pork is being handed out. Very few votes are legitimate votes that weren't designed to game the system in some way.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 03 2017, @06:44AM (5 children)
The problem, as the GP explained, is that staying home does not communicate your grievances. It is very easy to claim that everybody staying home does not care: even if it is not true.
Spoiling your ballot leaves a paper trail. It shows that you are willing to show up and vote: if only there was a viable candidate to choose from.
Myself, I advocate voting third-party. That requires some extra research, since the media is apparently not going to tell you about the candidates.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 03 2017, @03:24PM (4 children)
Considering that third parties don't usually get over 5% a piece, the best way IMO is to vote for the third party that's doing the best in order to push them towards that 15% threshold, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 03 2017, @05:13PM (3 children)
One problem with strategic voting is that polls are wrong 1 time out of 20 (corollary to being within the margin of error 19 times out of 20).
Canada has 308 ridings. Last election somebody was advocating strategically voting for the candidate most likely to win in about 12 "close" ridings. The only problem: 308 x 0.05 (5%) = 15.4 or 15 ridings. You would expect the polls to be wrong in that many ridings.
Polls often ignore third-party candidates as well.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 03 2017, @05:19PM (2 children)
I'm not talking about strategic voting. Voting for a third party that has virtually zero chance of winning doesn't do anything other than make a statement.
In voting methods, tactical voting (or strategic voting or sophisticated voting or insincere voting) occurs, in elections with more than two candidates, when a voter supports another candidate more strongly than his or her sincere preference in order to prevent an undesirable outcome.[1]
It sounds like in order to qualify as strategic voting, there has to be a chance in hell of the candidate you're voting for actually winning.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 03 2017, @05:53PM (1 child)
If all you are doing is making a statement, why vote for a candidate you don't like?
How do you know which third-party is "doing the best" without polls?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 03 2017, @06:00PM
If all you are doing is making a statement, why vote for a candidate you don't like?
in order to push them towards that 15% threshold
The televised debate/campaign finance one.
a candidate you don't like
regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
How do you know which third-party is "doing the best" without polls?
Oh, *that's* what you meant. I wasn't sure why you were replying to me from my first reading of your post.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:34PM (1 child)
So, do you have 5 fucking minutes? Put up, or shut up, mother fucker.
Mike McGuire - 916-651-4002 or 707-576-2771
You can call up and tell them whether or not you support SB562 (Single payer medical).
Lazy huh? I'll send you a comment every week of who you can be calling. It's not limited to people like McGuire. Feel like calling the cops that were abusing the fuck out of people in the NODAPL protests?
I'll give you their number.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by requerdanos on Friday March 03 2017, @12:24AM
I'll give you their number.
I find your ideas interesting, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @08:54PM
What said your vote was the only way to communicate or be involved in civic duty? open your eyes.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday March 04 2017, @03:34AM
Voting is one way to make your voice heard.
There are others - many more effective than voting, but they generally take more time and effort than voting.
🌻🌻 [google.com]