Slash Boxes

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: 0, Flamebait) by edIII on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:42PM (7 children)

    by edIII (791) on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:42PM (#474128)

    Yeah, and that's all you can say instead of responding to the actual arguments you stupid fuck.

    You make zero fucking difference with your vote. It's just a delusional dance where you believe you had any control over the dance floor, or your dance card.

    You're wrong about voting, you're wrong about the value of abstaining, and I bet you are not anywhere after the fucking vote are you?

    Do you call your Senators? I bet your follow through game fucking sucks, and I'M THE ONE who picks up after you by calling and writing all the time.

    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -2  
       Flamebait=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NewNic on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:57PM (3 children)

    by NewNic (6420) on Thursday March 02 2017, @09:57PM (#474144) Journal

    OK, I'll give you a more reasoned answer.

    Abstaining is NOT VOTING. Go look it up in a dictionary if you need any help with this.

    But, more importantly, what message does abstaining send? It sends the message: "choose whatever method you want to fuck me, and just do it, I don't care". Abstaining doesn't send a no-confidence message that anyone will hear. No one cares about you, because you chose not to send a message.

    I'll explain why voting is important, even if your choice is between a cat turd and a dog turd. You have to recognize that there is a long game in play and that things may be more important then the current election.

    Now, IMHO, whether the President is a (R) or (D) doesn't really matter. What matters is what these labels mean. What matters is where is the midpoint between left and right wings. The Koch brothers have recognized this and developed the Tea Party to move the center of politics to the right. Republican politicians know that they can shift right and not risk losing votes, so that's what they do. Democrats then move to the right to be nearer the center and now the center has moved further right. Rinse and repeat.

    How do you fix this? Well, if you don't vote, you won't fix it. Your "vote" is for the situation to continue. The only answer is to vote for the most liberal politicians that you can choose and keep voting this way. You are sending a message to your politicians that moving to the left will result in more votes. If enough people do this, then the center can be pulled to the left.

    Also, primaries. Voting in the primaries is just (if not more) important than voting in the final election. Again, you can send a message by voting, but send nothing by abstaining.

    Abstain and you are "voting" to keep the same broken system. Abstain and politicians don't care about your opinion. Abstain and no one cares about you.

    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @04:39AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @04:39AM (#474265)

      Liberals have decided to throw LGBT under the bus in favor of Muslims. Er, maybe throw them off the roof. This also doesn't bring us women's rights, in case you hadn't heard of the middle east. Going conservative is safer for LGBT and women. Going liberal is a vote to oppress them. Rape culture in the USA is not really a thing, but it is 100% real in the places the rapefugees come from. Oh, the Sikh guy that was shot? Muslims do that too, in a more organized way.

      Liberals have also decided to throw blacks under the bus. Blacks have been hurt worst by illegal aliens. Illegals get hired, while "scary" blacks go unemployed.

      Liberal-conservative is not really the best way to divide things. Better is globalist-nationalist. The globalists will gladly throw all of us little people under the bus. US representative Pelosi didn't start out rich when she entered politics. When you look at Pelosi's net worth and her salary in the house of representatives, it becomes clear that she has been in office for over 1000 years. Um, no, she's just corrupt to the tune of nearly 200 million dollars. Outsourcing works out well for these people, directly or via "campaign contributions", while American culture dies and the American people slip into poverty.

      • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Friday March 03 2017, @06:36AM

        by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Friday March 03 2017, @06:36AM (#474286)

        I know people in the US find this hard to believe, but there are more than 2 choices to choose from.
        If the small, insignificant, parties start getting even 2% of the vote: the "big 2" will start adopting their policies.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 03 2017, @08:10PM

      by edIII (791) on Friday March 03 2017, @08:10PM (#474545)

      Fine, you play in your little rigged games with the delusion of the "long-game" as you say.

      Meanwhile, I'm going to be doing every single thing I can do to resist them at all costs, and in all ways. Voting is fucking meaningless. Surrounding their houses and families with protestors is what means something. Making sure that they can't sit in their offices without thousands of people chanting at them, means something.

      You sit there and fucking vote. I'll be the one actually doing something.

      Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday March 03 2017, @01:22AM (2 children)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Friday March 03 2017, @01:22AM (#474203) Journal

    It seems you are angry about the fact that once we get the General Election, it's a choice between a giant douche or a shit sandwich. Abstaining at that point is valid, but the problem is, you are perfectly camouflaged as being part of the group of people obsessed with Justin Bieber and nobody else. A better protest vote is to vote 3d party because you are then very clear in your opinion rather than ambiguous.

    But setting that aside, if a person becomes interested in the race only in the GE, it is already too late. The time when your vote can make a difference in knocking out all the douches and shits, is in the primaries. If the primaries would generate as much interest as the general, we might have fewer crap candidates.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @04:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 03 2017, @04:22AM (#474259)

      I missed the primary. I probably would've voted for somebody lame like Jeb Bush, figuring that Trump couldn't take down the felon... but then he did!!!

      America has been saved. My complaints are trivial (death of net neutrality, not banning all the Muslim nations, lame wall instead of landmines...) compared to the horrors that Clinton would have foisted upon us.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 03 2017, @12:42PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Friday March 03 2017, @12:42PM (#474334)

      I agree that you should vote in the primaries.

      That can do only so much, though, to knock out the worst candidates, if the worst candidates have the backing of the people that run the election. For example, on the Democratic side, the worst candidate can lose the vote by a substantial margin and still win the nomination if they have the backing of the largely unelected "super-delegates" - Hillary Clinton nearly did this in 2008. And election officials in many US states bend the rules to try to ensure their favorite candidate wins.

      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.