The times, they are a-changin'

[Tigermike 3,426]

Very interesting.

Six Months After Legalizing Marijuana, Two Big Things Have Happened in Colorado

It's now been six months since Colorado enacted its historic marijuana legalization policy, and two big things have already happened:

1. Colorado's cash crop is turning out to be even more profitable than the state could have hoped.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Image credit: Tri Vo

In March alone, taxed and legal recreational marijuana sales generated nearly $19 million, up from $14 million in February. The state has garnered more than $10 million in taxes from retail sales in the first four months — money that will go to public schools and infrastructure, as well as for youth educational campaigns about substance use.

According to his latest budget proposal, Gov. John Hickenlooper expects a healthy $1 billion in marijuana sales over the next fiscal year. That's nearly $134 million in tax revenue. Sales from recreational shops are expected to hit $600 million, which is a more than 50% increase over what was originally expected.

2. Denver crime rates have suddenly fallen.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Image credit: Tri Vo

Marijuana-related arrests, which make up 50% of all drug-related crimes, have plummeted in Colorado, freeing up law enforcement to focus on other criminal activity. By removing marijuana penalties, the state saved somewhere between $12 million and $40 million in 2012, according to the Colorado Center on Law and Policy.

According to government data, the Denver city- and county-wide murder rate has dropped 52.9% since recreational marijuana use was legalized in January. This is compared to the same period last year, a time frame encompassing Jan. 1 through April 30.

As the Huffington Post notes, this is a far cry from wild-eyed claims by legalization opponents that legal weed was the devil's work and Colorado would see a surge in crime and drug use.

"Expect more crime, more kids using marijuana and pot for sale everywhere," said Douglas County Sheriff David Weaver in 2012.

"I think our entire state will pay the price." Gov. Hickenlooper at one point said. "Colorado is known for many great things — marijuana should not be one of them"

With only a quarter of the year's data to work from, it may be too soon to definitively attribute these changes to marijuana legalization, but the possibility of a correlative pattern is certainly worth noting.

We are witnessing the fruits of Colorado's legal weed experiment, and those fruits are juicy indeed.

Of course, Gov. Hickenlooper has completely changed his tune, saying, "While the rest of the country's economy is slowly picking back up, we're thriving here in Colorado."

With the fall of prohibition, the marijuana industry has developed rapidly, generating thousands of new jobs. It is estimated there are currently about 10,000 people directly involved with the blossoming weed industry, with up to 2,000 people having gained employment in the past few months alone.

A policy gamble that anti-marijuana activists warned would turn Denver into a drug-infested hellscape has provided the city and state with numerous benefits, and set the stage for more states and cities to follow suite.

Meanwhile, in Washington: In yet another sign that 2014 is shaping up to be the year of marijuana reform, the Department of Drug Enforcement (DEA) is waving a white flag and surrendering on a crucial policy issue that has kept legalization from gaining traction across the nation.

The DEA is now asking the Food and Drug Administration to remove marijuana from its list of the most dangerous and harmful drugs. This could signal a radical shift in the way our government regulates and enforces weed. Marijuana advocates hail the decision as a necessary policy step towards eventual legalization, removing a critical roadblock that has constrained marijuana legalization on the local and federal levels. It is, of course, the first step of many.

Then there's the city of Washington, D.C. This November, it's all but certain that D.C. will vote on a marijuana ballot measure and even pass it, setting up a battle with Congress to legalize. This could be the most important battle yet in the marijuana prohibition fight; D.C. is considered a staging ground for many local policies that get enacted throughout the country, and a victory for pot could open the floodgates elsewhere.

America agrees: Public opinion has never been more in favor of decriminalizing possession of small amounts of pot. An October 2013 Gallup poll found that 58% of adults favored legalizing marijuana for adult use.

In 2013, 52% thought that marijuana should be legalized, with 45% opposed. According to Pew, this is a 13-point jump from 2010, when 41% thought it should be legalized and 52% opposed. The year 2010 was when Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana in California, was defeated with only a 53% majority. And of course, this is a dramatic swing from 1969, when nearly 8 out of 10 Americans opposed legalization.

Ending prohibition saves money. Since 1970, the government has spent $1.5 trillion on "drug control," though addiction rates remain constant:

Image Credit: Thugs Not Drugs via Mother Jones

If you're staring at these stark numbers and wondering why the government even bothers, you're not alone.

Six months after marijuana legalization, Colorado has basically proved decades of federal marijuana prohibition policy wrong. The times, they are a-changin'.

El Linko

[AURaptor 1,137]

Six months after marijuana legalization, Colorado has basically proved decades of federal marijuana prohibition policy wrong. The times, they are a-changin'.

Same could be said about the IRS, the State Dept's polices, on just about everything, social welfare spending...

We the People have been lied to and lead down one rabbit hole after another by the so called 'elites' of our nation, it's all but gone now.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Six months after marijuana legalization, Colorado has basically proved decades of federal marijuana prohibition policy wrong. The times, they are a-changin'.

Same could be said about the IRS, the State Dept's polices, on just about everything, social welfare spending...

We the People have been lied to and lead down one rabbit hole after another by the so called 'elites' of our nation, it's all but gone now.

I agree. It isn't a revenue problem, it's how we collect the revenue. It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend. Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

Ideology is NOT the answer. Reducing/eliminating bureaucracy, corruption, and incompetency is the answer.

[AURaptor 1,137]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

[icanthearyou 4,468]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

[TheBlueVue 177]

" Reducing/eliminating bureaucracy, corruption, and incompetency is the answer"

Of course, but. it is fair to note which party subscribes to the premise of acquiring and sustaining political power through the expansion of bureaucracy.

Yes I know expanding bureaucracy has occurred under both parties but on balance which party comes closer to expressing the need for smaller less intrusive govt? While the solution is not necessarily ideological, in essence, it is hard to escape the ideological predicates upon which the respective philosophies of governance are built.

• I think most folks would concede that an expanding bureaucracy lends itself to incompetency and corruption especially when govt workers unions have so much power that nobody can get fired or even demoted.
  
  
  

[TexasTiger 13,556]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

[TheBlueVue 177]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

" Reducing/eliminating bureaucracy, corruption, and incompetency is the answer"

Of course, but. it is fair to note which party subscribes to the premise of acquiring and sustaining political power through the expansion of bureaucracy.

Yes I know expanding bureaucracy has occurred under both parties but on balance which party comes closer to expressing the need for smaller less intrusive govt? While the solution is not necessarily ideological, in essence, it is hard to escape the ideological predicates upon which the respective philosophies of governance are built.

• I think most folks would concede that an expanding bureaucracy lends itself to incompetency and corruption especially when govt workers unions have so much power that nobody can get fired or even demoted.
  

I think you just defined the problem. I'm just not sure you understand how.

[TheBlueVue 177]

" Reducing/eliminating bureaucracy, corruption, and incompetency is the answer"

Of course, but. it is fair to note which party subscribes to the premise of acquiring and sustaining political power through the expansion of bureaucracy.

Yes I know expanding bureaucracy has occurred under both parties but on balance which party comes closer to expressing the need for smaller less intrusive govt? While the solution is not necessarily ideological, in essence, it is hard to escape the ideological predicates upon which the respective philosophies of governance are built.

• I think most folks would concede that an expanding bureaucracy lends itself to incompetency and corruption especially when govt workers unions have so much power that nobody can get fired or even demoted.
  

I think you just defined the problem. I'm just not sure you understand how.

Oh of course! Im not smart enough to even know what Im saying!

[icanthearyou 4,468]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

I do. Shoot all them people.

[TheBlueVue 177]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

I do. Shoot all them people.

I'll put you in the column of those who think it folly to enforce Americ'a borders too. Nevermind every other country on the planet does it and w/o any enforcement of our borders are we really a country of laws? I mean we have immigration laws on the books that are not even being acknowledged much less enforced. If those laws dont mean anything would you and Tex be so kind to let all us dumbazzes know which laws do matter?

[TexasTiger 13,556]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

[TheBlueVue 177]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

SO your sarcasm was pointless. If you were attempting to make a point using sarcasm, I missed it completely. SO, since you've now implied, here, that you favor border enforcement how would you enforce them, Tex?

[icanthearyou 4,468]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

I do. Shoot all them people.

I'll put you in the column of those who think it folly to enforce Americ'a borders too. Nevermind every other country on the planet does it and w/o any enforcement of our borders are we really a country of laws? I mean we have immigration laws on the books that are not even being acknowledged much less enforced. If those laws dont mean anything would you and Tex be so kind to let all us dumbazzes know which laws do matter?

The folly is believing there is a simple solution. Unless of course, you believe that this is a conspiracy. I'm not condemning the conspiracy theorists but, I would like to see some evidence.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

SO your sarcasm was pointless. If you were attempting to make a point using sarcasm, I missed it completely. SO, since you've now implied, here, that you favor border enforcement how would you enforce them, Tex?

Take it to a border enforcement thread.

[TheBlueVue 177]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

I do. Shoot all them people.

I'll put you in the column of those who think it folly to enforce Americ'a borders too. Nevermind every other country on the planet does it and w/o any enforcement of our borders are we really a country of laws? I mean we have immigration laws on the books that are not even being acknowledged much less enforced. If those laws dont mean anything would you and Tex be so kind to let all us dumbazzes know which laws do matter?

The folly is believing there is a simple solution. Unless of course, you believe that this is a conspiracy. I'm not condemning the conspiracy theorists but, I would lik to see some evidence.

maybe you can point out who said the solution is simple? Common sense tells me a minimal effort to enforcing borders is not even being made. Border patrol agents are changing diapers and doing everything associated with handling a virtual diaspora of illegals from central america. One does have to question what significant changes occurred in places of origin that have always been beset with problems of corruption and violence to accelerate this illegal influx to literally 1000s a day?

[TheBlueVue 177]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

SO your sarcasm was pointless. If you were attempting to make a point using sarcasm, I missed it completely. SO, since you've now implied, here, that you favor border enforcement how would you enforce them, Tex?

Take it to a border enforcement thread.

LOL convenient dodge when its clear you'd always rather take shots at me rather than explaining the point you were attempting to make with your sarcasm

[TexasTiger 13,556]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

SO your sarcasm was pointless. If you were attempting to make a point using sarcasm, I missed it completely. SO, since you've now implied, here, that you favor border enforcement how would you enforce them, Tex?

Take it to a border enforcement thread.

LOL convenient dodge when its clear you'd always rather take shots at me rather than explaining the point you were attempting to make with your sarcasm

Yes, having thread topics is a convenient way of organizing topics .

[AURaptor 1,137]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

I never said the act of spending. Seriously, where do you dream up these things that others do NOT say. I said WASTEFULLY.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica.

I was absolutely serious in what I said, not what he thought I said. And do what it takes to control the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants. If you don't love America, and what she stands for, you'll open the borders to all and put the freaking world on welfare. Only to see it destroyed.

[AURaptor 1,137]

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

Then that means you'd have to pay triple, as your reading comprehension doesn't even register.

[TexasTiger 13,556]

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

Then that means you'd have to pay triple, as your reading comprehension doesn't even register.

What was that ?

[Tigermike 3,426]

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

.

It isn't a spending problem, it's how we spend.

Bureaucracy, waste, laws and policies that benefit a too few at the expense of too many.

:gofig:/>

Umm, wouldn't the fact that we're spending wastefully BE a spending problem ??

Are you serious? The act of spending, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Some expenditures produce returns or net savings, others are pure waste.

Yes, he's serious . Stop spending ! Oh, yeah, and fence the border, put troops there and everywhere else that doesn't love Merica. ;)/>

So, you favor no enforcement of America's borders?

Sylvan may be able to help you with reading comprehension. You may have to pay extra , though.

SO your sarcasm was pointless. If you were attempting to make a point using sarcasm, I missed it completely. SO, since you've now implied, here, that you favor border enforcement how would you enforce them, Tex?

Take it to a border enforcement thread.

What you guys want to derail that too?