Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 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: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday March 03 2017, @11:39AM (2 children)

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday March 03 2017, @11:39AM (#474320)

    IMHO, you don't have a right to complain if you didn't vote.

    So you're opposed to the first amendment? If you meant it another way, what exactly do you mean and what practical effect does it have on reality? Are you saying their opinions are automatically invalid simply because they did not vote? That would be a non sequitur. Are you saying you would disagree with their opinions automatically simply because they didn't vote? Then that would make you an idiot. Are you simply saying they are foolish? Then just say so. Regardless of what you mean, the 'You didn't vote, so you have no right to complain.' argument needs to die; at best it's just unclear, and at worst it's outright illogical.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday March 03 2017, @04:14PM (1 child)

    by Whoever (4524) on Friday March 03 2017, @04:14PM (#474407) Journal

    IMHO, you don't have a right to complain if you didn't vote.

    So you're opposed to the first amendment?

    Moral right.

    Yes, obviously, the first amendment also protects the rights of the weak minded idiots who don't vote, just as it protects (unfortunately) the rights of large, wealthy corporations.

    My point is that people who don't vote have no moral right to complain.

    • (Score: 2) by edIII on Friday March 03 2017, @08:15PM

      by edIII (791) on Friday March 03 2017, @08:15PM (#474548)

      Oh, yes, we fucking do.

      What you are saying is that because we recognize the game is rigged, because we recognize that there is no way to win, because we recognize that it's not in our best interests, and finally STOP playing the game, that we don't get to complain?

      No, fuck you. I get to fucking complain, and protest, and perform civil disobedience as much as I want to. It's my moral right to fight rigged games filled with cheats and liars. It absolutely fucking is.

      The game is fucking rigged. Why the fuck would you still play in it? Then why the fuck would you insult and demean the people pointing out that you are the fool playing in a game that will never benefit you?

      It never has. Americans, specifically the poor and middle class, have never, not once, not even remotely, been benefited by voting and politics. Only when there is massive strife, deaths, and bloody riots, have American's lives temporarily improved.

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