8 ms·

I think it's pretty transparently clear that even if you hate the drug itself, there have been no obvious disasters in the legalized states. Tax revenue plus no

I think it's pretty transparently clear that even if you hate the drug itself, there have been no obvious disasters in the legalized states. Tax revenue plus no hugely obvious negative effects is a hard argument to deny. On a broader level, this is exactly what federalism is about - states being able to try things to experiment, without committing the entire country irrevocably.

cronix 8y ago
The data is still coming in. There was a recent report done by insurance companies that in the states where it's been legalized for recreational use, accident reports are up ~5-6% and everyone's rates in those states are going up to reflect that. http://fortune.com/2018/10/18/legal-marijuana-car-accidents-study/ http://fortune.com/2018/10/18/legal-marijuana-car-accidents-...
- u801e 8y ago
  Correlation does not equal causation.
  - jsgo 8y ago
    No disagreement there, but the correlation is apparently causing an increase in car insurance costs, regardless of causation.
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      the correlation is apparently causing an increase in car insurance costs, regardless of causation This does not parse.
      - timerol 8y ago
        Insurance companies notice a correlation, so increase rates to compensate. (Since insurance companies are in the business of spotting and correcting for correlations more than causes.) Therefore a correlation between states which legalize marijuana and increases in accidents cause an increase in car insurance costs. Marijuana doesn't need to cause accidents for this to be the case. What that analysis doesn't take into account is whether the next state to legalize marijuana will also have to deal with increased accident rates and insurance costs. This is IMO the more important question.
    - coding123 8y ago
      I don't think correlation is even necessary to raise rates if there is a 5-6% increase in accidents. Also - in the states that went legal, there is an active population boom, but just as likely is being caused by tech startups. Population increases are more likely to cause an accident rate to increase. We just won't know (for sure) if pot or jobs are the cause for the population increases. Maybe it's pot jobs?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - ska 8y ago
      That's how insurance works.
  - dschuler 8y ago
    I hear this so often without any other evidence to refute an argument.. Causation requires correlation. It's certainly not enough to prove causation, but it's actually a necessary starting point. Speaking of driving and marijuana, I've noticed a large increase in pot smoke coming from cars in traffic since marijuana was legalized in CA. I expect some of that to come from passengers, but people driving while high is no joke.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - technofire 8y ago
    The study incorporated many more variables than whether marijuana was legal in each state, including demographic factors, so this amounts to a controlled experiment.
    - achileas 8y ago
      Controlled experiments generally (especially in cases like these) still only show correlation.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- wavefunction 8y ago
  At least with Colorado the rate of increase in accidents was lower than the rate of increase in population resulting from new residents moving there. So per-capita accident rates actually fell.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
RIMR 8y ago
I can even excuse being personally disinterested in Cannabis, but you would have to be pretty entrenched in misinformation to hate cannabis itself. What societal harm is there? The biggest complaint I ever hear that isn't based on a non-truth is "it smells bad".
- dyarosla 8y ago
  Didn’t downvote you but wanted to respond- Smells bad can itself be a big deal. Some people also have migraines that result from inhaling second hand marijuana smoke. Moreover, many people don’t want to smell the stuff in their daily commute- and the smell definitely lingers longer, than say, tobacco, in an open space. I’m not opposed to legalization, but saying that there’s no societal harm is pretty misinformed too. Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis.
  - bfuller 8y ago
    Everyone is moving to vaping distillate. There's virtually no smell if you're outdoors.
  - klank 8y ago
    > Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis. I think an individual hating something doesn't necessarily elevate that thing to the level of "societal harm". For example, durian smells bad. Many people hate it because of its smell. However, I've never heard somebody go on about the harm durian is causing to society.
    - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
      Durian is banned in the Singapore metro (with a sign alerting to the prohibition that has gone viral) because of its smell. Calling for keeping marijuana strictly illegal based on its smell is silly. Still, the smell is just as noxious as cigarette smoke to many people. I found walking around downtown Montevideo annoying. Legalization should come with some measures against smoking in public, just like those being applied to tobacco in many places around the world.
aphextron 8y ago
>I think it's pretty transparently clear that even if you hate the drug itself, there have been no obvious disasters in the legalized states. Tax revenue plus no hugely obvious negative effects is a hard argument to deny. As someone who supports legalization, it's still way too early to definitively say that. Marijuana is not a harmless substance. There will very definitely be some negative effects, and acting like it's a magical panacea will not be helpful. Marijuana addiction is very real, although it only affects a small subset of users (~9% is often quoted). There have been zero long term studies with regard to a population's lifetime health outcomes having regular access to highly potent, legal marijuana. Only time will tell, although on the net I have no doubt these negatives will balance to an overall positive.
- mjevans 8y ago
  I support legalizing... well nearly everything. Some things might be actually dangerous and need to only be used within controlled settings. Having said that, I'd really prefer if everyone that wanted marijuana would use the ediables rather than smoking it in various ways. Living in a state where it's legal, I absolutely detest the smell, it's smoke is even more potent and disgusting than tobacco. On the same note, I hate tobacco smoke and want use of such products to be limited to negative-draw scrubbed exhaust environments.
  - TheCycoONE 8y ago
    In Ontario, smoking tobacco or marijuana is illegal at anywhere in any business that the public has regular access to, including outdoor patios, as well as a buffer area around playgrounds. That mostly eliminates being forced to endure other peoples smoke more than in passing - unless your neighbors smoke heavily in their yard.
  - wwweston 8y ago
    I couldn't agree more. I supported various decriminalization and legalization pushes on the principle that the criminal justice system is a poor avenue for addressing things that are public health problem, which is a principle I still believe in. But I've got some considerable buyer's regret; I don't want to smoke myself, and as far as I can tell, it's shockingly common that smokers of either tobacco or cannabis are (a) pretty bad at realizing how others experience it (and how far the experience travels) and/or (b) not particularly considerate about the fact that others haven't signed up for it. It's particularly galling in living situations where people will smoke on balconies or just outside an entryway apparently heedless of the fact that smoke will travel in other people's windows; and even smoking indoors travels through both windows and ventilation systems. For a while I thought this might be something that could be solved via education and etiquette, but there are too many entitled smokers. I don't think this is a problem that's going to be fixable without at least minor citations/fines to back up the right behavior. And we might need to see if there's a relationship with production that's neither full-on industrialized nor necessarily driven underground.
hockeybias 8y ago
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-accidents-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-acci...
bliblah 8y ago
The issue is that because banks operate on an interstate level they won't risk getting their hands dirty with weed money until congress legalizes it full stop. This creates a situation that all these businesses need to operate in cash like 1980's drug dealers or find some credit union that solely operates in the state. During my visit of Portland the cashier of one the dispensaries described to me all the additional security measures they had to take including building a bank vault in the store. During tax season they have to hire private security and armed guards with armored vehicles to transfer duffel bags full of cash to the department of revenue who then penalizes them an additional fee for paying in large sums of cash. This is ironic because the department of state then has to go on a hiring spree and needs to purchase equipment to count out this massive amount of cash (probably millions once add up all the dispensaries). Its a big waste of money since all the hires and equipment are unnecessary once you realize that 99% of all other businesses just pay via wire or check. I also can't imagine how much money is spent by the business trying to keep track of all the loose cash.
- acct1771 8y ago
  Why do you describe credit unions as if they were trash?
  - bliblah 8y ago
    I didn't say that? I merely state that there options were use petty cash or rely on a credit union that does NOT perform interstate commerce which is pretty rare.
    - acct1771 8y ago
      The "some" reads like condescension, may be a regional thing, sorry!

cronix 8y ago

The data is still coming in. There was a recent report done by insurance companies that in the states where it's been legalized for recreational use, accident reports are up ~5-6% and everyone's rates in those states are going up to reflect that. http://fortune.com/2018/10/18/legal-marijuana-car-accidents-study/ http://fortune.com/2018/10/18/legal-marijuana-car-accidents-...

u801e 8y ago
Correlation does not equal causation.
- jsgo 8y ago
  No disagreement there, but the correlation is apparently causing an increase in car insurance costs, regardless of causation.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    the correlation is apparently causing an increase in car insurance costs, regardless of causation This does not parse.
    - timerol 8y ago
      Insurance companies notice a correlation, so increase rates to compensate. (Since insurance companies are in the business of spotting and correcting for correlations more than causes.) Therefore a correlation between states which legalize marijuana and increases in accidents cause an increase in car insurance costs. Marijuana doesn't need to cause accidents for this to be the case. What that analysis doesn't take into account is whether the next state to legalize marijuana will also have to deal with increased accident rates and insurance costs. This is IMO the more important question.
  - coding123 8y ago
    I don't think correlation is even necessary to raise rates if there is a 5-6% increase in accidents. Also - in the states that went legal, there is an active population boom, but just as likely is being caused by tech startups. Population increases are more likely to cause an accident rate to increase. We just won't know (for sure) if pot or jobs are the cause for the population increases. Maybe it's pot jobs?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - ska 8y ago
    That's how insurance works.
- dschuler 8y ago
  I hear this so often without any other evidence to refute an argument.. Causation requires correlation. It's certainly not enough to prove causation, but it's actually a necessary starting point. Speaking of driving and marijuana, I've noticed a large increase in pot smoke coming from cars in traffic since marijuana was legalized in CA. I expect some of that to come from passengers, but people driving while high is no joke.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- technofire 8y ago
  The study incorporated many more variables than whether marijuana was legal in each state, including demographic factors, so this amounts to a controlled experiment.
  - achileas 8y ago
    Controlled experiments generally (especially in cases like these) still only show correlation.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
wavefunction 8y ago
At least with Colorado the rate of increase in accidents was lower than the rate of increase in population resulting from new residents moving there. So per-capita accident rates actually fell.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

RIMR 8y ago

I can even excuse being personally disinterested in Cannabis, but you would have to be pretty entrenched in misinformation to hate cannabis itself. What societal harm is there? The biggest complaint I ever hear that isn't based on a non-truth is "it smells bad".

dyarosla 8y ago
Didn’t downvote you but wanted to respond- Smells bad can itself be a big deal. Some people also have migraines that result from inhaling second hand marijuana smoke. Moreover, many people don’t want to smell the stuff in their daily commute- and the smell definitely lingers longer, than say, tobacco, in an open space. I’m not opposed to legalization, but saying that there’s no societal harm is pretty misinformed too. Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis.
- bfuller 8y ago
  Everyone is moving to vaping distillate. There's virtually no smell if you're outdoors.
- klank 8y ago
  > Seemingly minor things like ‘smells bad’ can easily make one hate cannabis. I think an individual hating something doesn't necessarily elevate that thing to the level of "societal harm". For example, durian smells bad. Many people hate it because of its smell. However, I've never heard somebody go on about the harm durian is causing to society.
  - Mediterraneo10 8y ago
    Durian is banned in the Singapore metro (with a sign alerting to the prohibition that has gone viral) because of its smell. Calling for keeping marijuana strictly illegal based on its smell is silly. Still, the smell is just as noxious as cigarette smoke to many people. I found walking around downtown Montevideo annoying. Legalization should come with some measures against smoking in public, just like those being applied to tobacco in many places around the world.

aphextron 8y ago

>I think it's pretty transparently clear that even if you hate the drug itself, there have been no obvious disasters in the legalized states. Tax revenue plus no hugely obvious negative effects is a hard argument to deny. As someone who supports legalization, it's still way too early to definitively say that. Marijuana is not a harmless substance. There will very definitely be some negative effects, and acting like it's a magical panacea will not be helpful. Marijuana addiction is very real, although it only affects a small subset of users (~9% is often quoted). There have been zero long term studies with regard to a population's lifetime health outcomes having regular access to highly potent, legal marijuana. Only time will tell, although on the net I have no doubt these negatives will balance to an overall positive.

mjevans 8y ago
I support legalizing... well nearly everything. Some things might be actually dangerous and need to only be used within controlled settings. Having said that, I'd really prefer if everyone that wanted marijuana would use the ediables rather than smoking it in various ways. Living in a state where it's legal, I absolutely detest the smell, it's smoke is even more potent and disgusting than tobacco. On the same note, I hate tobacco smoke and want use of such products to be limited to negative-draw scrubbed exhaust environments.
- TheCycoONE 8y ago
  In Ontario, smoking tobacco or marijuana is illegal at anywhere in any business that the public has regular access to, including outdoor patios, as well as a buffer area around playgrounds. That mostly eliminates being forced to endure other peoples smoke more than in passing - unless your neighbors smoke heavily in their yard.
- wwweston 8y ago
  I couldn't agree more. I supported various decriminalization and legalization pushes on the principle that the criminal justice system is a poor avenue for addressing things that are public health problem, which is a principle I still believe in. But I've got some considerable buyer's regret; I don't want to smoke myself, and as far as I can tell, it's shockingly common that smokers of either tobacco or cannabis are (a) pretty bad at realizing how others experience it (and how far the experience travels) and/or (b) not particularly considerate about the fact that others haven't signed up for it. It's particularly galling in living situations where people will smoke on balconies or just outside an entryway apparently heedless of the fact that smoke will travel in other people's windows; and even smoking indoors travels through both windows and ventilation systems. For a while I thought this might be something that could be solved via education and etiquette, but there are too many entitled smokers. I don't think this is a problem that's going to be fixable without at least minor citations/fines to back up the right behavior. And we might need to see if there's a relationship with production that's neither full-on industrialized nor necessarily driven underground.

hockeybias 8y ago

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-accidents-bn/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/18/health/marijuana-driving-acci...

bliblah 8y ago

The issue is that because banks operate on an interstate level they won't risk getting their hands dirty with weed money until congress legalizes it full stop. This creates a situation that all these businesses need to operate in cash like 1980's drug dealers or find some credit union that solely operates in the state. During my visit of Portland the cashier of one the dispensaries described to me all the additional security measures they had to take including building a bank vault in the store. During tax season they have to hire private security and armed guards with armored vehicles to transfer duffel bags full of cash to the department of revenue who then penalizes them an additional fee for paying in large sums of cash. This is ironic because the department of state then has to go on a hiring spree and needs to purchase equipment to count out this massive amount of cash (probably millions once add up all the dispensaries). Its a big waste of money since all the hires and equipment are unnecessary once you realize that 99% of all other businesses just pay via wire or check. I also can't imagine how much money is spent by the business trying to keep track of all the loose cash.

acct1771 8y ago
Why do you describe credit unions as if they were trash?
- bliblah 8y ago
  I didn't say that? I merely state that there options were use petty cash or rely on a credit union that does NOT perform interstate commerce which is pretty rare.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    The "some" reads like condescension, may be a regional thing, sorry!