Colorado making so much money from drugs they don't know what to do with it all!

[Tgo01]

Nobody predicted test scores would rise. People were predicting a drop in crime. That's why it's relevant.

Yeah but that's sort of what Thondalar said a couple posts under yours here. Are they really looking at crime as a whole, like the year before legalization we had 100,000 total crimes and now we have 98,000 total crimes? If you stop busting people for possession then of course you're going to have less crimes overall. That's like legalizing murder then celebrating because the number of violent crimes goes down.

Attributing cause is hard. One easy way to rule out causation is if the cause comes after the effect, though. Colorado's violent crime rate has been in decline since 2008 while it's property crime has been roughly constant since 2009 (ibid). As such, violent crime rate going down in 2014 tells us nothing, because it was already going down. A change in property crime (in either direction) could tell us something. I haven't found any state-wide data for 2014, though, and the article in the OP's ultimate source is an unnamed Denver police officer stating "We found there hasn't been much of a change of anything," which is not much of an empirical case.Source?

Also that. I think?

[Gnome Rage]

When people do things that are illegal and get caught doing it, we call that "crime".

When something illegal becomes legal, it's no longer a crime to do it.

If you arrested 100 people last year for marijuana-related offenses and 0 people this year, Crime has declined.

The math is pretty simple.

It isn't only non-violent possession crimes. Cartels have been impacted, they aren't able to sell their product as easily. Since a lot of the marijuana in the US comes from Mexico, legalization has hampered their ability to make money off of it. "retired federal agent Terry Nelson [was asked] whether legalization was hurting the cartels. “The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.”'
"A 2012 study from the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that U.S. state legalization would wipe out around 30% of the cartels' marijuana market. Another by the RAND Corporation in 2010 speculated that if American weed pushed out cartel-grown pot, the latter's profits from marijuana could plummet by 85%."

dis is where I got the second quote
dis is where I got the first
here is the link to another article relating to the study mentioned in the second quote

Cartels will likely just shift their market, away from pot toward cocaine and unfortunately, human trafficking--but that is not reason to stop legalization and the cartels.

[Tgo01]

It isn't only non-violent possession crimes. Cartels have been impacted, they aren't able to sell their product as easily. Since a lot of the marijuana in the US comes from Mexico, legalization has hampered their ability to make money off of it. "retired federal agent Terry Nelson [was asked] whether legalization was hurting the cartels. “The cartels are criminal organizations that were making as much as 35-40 percent of their income from marijuana,” Nelson said, “They aren’t able to move as much cannabis inside the US now.”'
"A 2012 study from the Mexican Competitiveness Institute found that U.S. state legalization would wipe out around 30% of the cartels' marijuana market. Another by the RAND Corporation in 2010 speculated that if American weed pushed out cartel-grown pot, the latter's profits from marijuana could plummet by 85%."

dis is where I got the second quote
dis is where I got the first
here is the link to another article relating to the study mentioned in the second quote

Cartels will likely just shift their market, away from pot toward cocaine and unfortunately, human trafficking--but that is not reason to stop legalization and the cartels.

I wonder when the cartels will just start opening up legal shops in Colorado. It's still gotta be a hell of a lot cheaper growing this shit in Mexico illegally then going through the legal route here in the US. Or maybe they have already started selling their shit in legal shops and that's why crime has gone down, because they are busting less dealers now too.

It's just like...okay yeah, "crime" has gone down. Well yeah, you made something legal that was previously illegal, of course crime has gone down. I wonder if there has been an increased in driving while high. Has Colorado found a way to deal with this yet? Once they do is crime going to go up because of everyone driving high?

It's crazy man, crazy!

[Gnome Rage]

I wonder when the cartels will just start opening up legal shops in Colorado. It's still gotta be a hell of a lot cheaper growing this shit in Mexico illegally then going through the legal route here in the US. Or maybe they have already started selling their shit in legal shops and that's why crime has gone down, because they are busting less dealers now too.

It's just like...okay yeah, "crime" has gone down. Well yeah, you made something legal that was previously illegal, of course crime has gone down. I wonder if there has been an increased in driving while high. Has Colorado found a way to deal with this yet? Once they do is crime going to go up because of everyone driving high?

It's crazy man, crazy!

Maybe, I suppose that anything is possible. I think that there are a lot of problems with the system, which is to be expected when it is so new. Colorado has shown the country that it can be managed, and I think that as more states legalize there will be better methods to protect the public. I think that one of the huge barriers to federal legalization is the inability to test a driver's sobriety in regards to marijuana. As it stands, you can test levels of THC via urine tests and blood tests. The problem with these tests is that they aren't done until hours after the actual incident occurs, and urine tests will show THC for weeks after smoking. Blood tests, as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong anyone) will show specific levels of THC, which I THINK does indicate whether the drive was "too high to drive". I found a Times article which says, " in Colorado and Washington, where recreational use has been legalized, that limit is five nanograms per milliliter of blood, or five parts per billion" will count as being under the influence while driving. Like I said, this is hard because a person's level of THC can come down between the arrest and the blood sample. Until there is some way to field test, perhaps a finger prick and a mobile testing device, like a diabetes meter, which could give immediate results, it is hard to prove or disprove sobriety when it comes to pot. There have been suggestions regarding lowering the it from five to one nanogram, but I guess this has met opposition because a heavy smoker could have five nanograms of THC in their blood a day after their last smoke. There have been studies that suggest driving while high is not as dangerous as driving while drunk--just because of the nature of the high the person is experiencing. Drunk drivers will speed more, and over estimate their skills, while stoned drivers actually tend to drive much slower, and be more nervous about their road skills which can lead them to actually be MORE cautious than even sober drivers, but even the people who published these findings are hesitant to say that there is a difference. Also, because there is the culture of going to bars to get drunk, it is more likely that someone will be driving drunk than driving high, because people who smoke pot tend to do it in their homes, apparently.

[Androidpk]

Colorado governor just said the other day he thinks it was a big mistake to legalize..

[Latrinsorm]

When there are literally less crimes (which people were convicted of performing) there is less crime.

This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

[Gnome Rage]

I think there are A LOT of kinks to work out in regards to pot, but I think that ultimately, once we've figured out or regulation, distribution, DUI stuff, etc, it will be a good thing for the country. I mean, just the fact that it will minimize the amount of non-violent drug offenders that we are PAYING to keep in prison, is enough for me... If someone gets arrested at say 18 years old for a non-violent drug offense, that is going to follow them for a minimum of 10 years, it inhibits good people from being viewed as anything but criminals. It creates a cycle, if you get out of prison after being charged with dealing drugs, or even possession of drugs, you have to now write that on every job application, every rental application, every everything, for a minimum of 10 years. As much as we would love to believe that this wouldn't impact the person's life, it does. It means that they are less likely to get a job, finish school, etc, because they are viewed as criminals by society. This leads the person to accept this identity as their own, which causes more crime. I'm sure many of you are of the opinion that criminals are criminals because they are, because they're bad or they're born that way, or whatever--but I am not--I think that society and family and etc influence their behavior.

[Androidpk]

This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

Therefore STFU and stop coming across as a mental case.

[Tgo01]

I mean, just the fact that it will minimize the amount of non-violent drug offenders that we are PAYING to keep in prison, is enough for me...

That's the thing though; this argument that there are hundreds of thousands of people in jail for "simple possession" is bogus. It's hyped up by the "legalize marijuana NOW!" crowd.

Yes, there are some people in jail just for simple possession, but it's on the low end of tens of thousands. The vast majority of people in jail for simple possession are also in jail for other crimes, most of which are violent crimes.

[Warriorbird]

This does not follow logically. Example:

Population A has 100 people and laws against marijuana use and DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
10 people use marijuana, of whom 0 commit DUI.
20 crimes per 100 people.

Population B has 100 people and laws against DUI.
10 people commit DUI.
30 people use marijuana, of whom 15 commit DUI.
25 crimes per 100 people.

Even if that does not convince you, crb's claim was that organized crime activity went down.

And even if THAT does not convince you, I don't understand why people are always so reticent to just source their claims. Don't you find it fun? Don't you find it more effective than simply repeating your claims? Don't you think it's disrespectful to the person you got the information from to not give them credit for finding it in the first place? I don't understand it.

Therefore psychosis.

It actually does follow. Those people would've gone down for marijuana use. You, in turn, haven't ever sourced how to "properly ban" a drug when it was pointed out your tobacco notions were nonsense and that both the bans on alcohol and marijuana helped increase potency and use.