Bloomberg Calls Colorado Pot Laws Dumb and Says to Keep Guns Away From Minorities - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kylel999;47103111]I imagine that nobody would be buying from dealers in Denver if they can be guaranteed weight at a guaranteed price at a guaranteed quality (I was even told by some people with medicinal cards and those dispensary locator apps that they get notifications for buy one get one free on ounces) Therefore, lots of dealers go out of business, therefore lots of children can't buy their weeds anymore..[/QUOTE] Meanwhile up in Canada the Conservatives are depending on hard-on-drugs votes, and they've got their arm jammed so far up Health Canada's ass the Prime Minister's moving HC's mouth. HC was anti-pot before, but now it's just beyond stupid. I'd have safe access to a dispensary if they'd just get over it, especially since the Supreme Court forced them to do it in the first place and then ruled against them in seven constitutional challenges since 2001, but they just find a new way to break the program whenever the court forces them to fix the previous intentional break. Buy-one-get-one-free ounces alone would do wonders for my depression (even before smoking any of it), I can barely afford street prices. Colorado and Washington, we're depending on you to prove that this model works, don't fuck it up. [QUOTE=darunner;47104225]The Colorado state legislators estimated a certain amount of tax revenue would be made from legalizing pot. They made more, because sales were better than expected (likely due to the pot tourism thing going on for the past year). Due to a state constitutional amendment passed back in the 90s, Colorado must refund the excess revenue back to the populace. As a result, they'll likely estimate higher revenue this year, meaning no rebate next tax season.[/QUOTE] Isn't Colorado mandated to dedicate most of that specific tax (less any rebate chunks) into education? I thought I remember reading that it was going to the education budget, but I could be wrong.

It's in the state constitution for Colorado that they redistribute exceeds taxes basically

[QUOTE=cody8295;47103114]Legalize all the drugs and have the state produce them and sell them at pharmacies. No more drug crime, no more overdoses attributed to contaminants, much less overdoses in general.[/QUOTE] That's exactly how it worked back in the day when heroin was a common recreational drug and addiction was seen as a failure of willpower, and we've learned a lot since then. I'm all in favor of legalizing weed but there is no good reason to legalize and distribute hard stuff like meth and crack.

[QUOTE=cody8295;47103114]Legalize all the drugs and have the state produce them and sell them at pharmacies. No more drug crime, no more overdoses attributed to contaminants, much less overdoses in general.[/QUOTE] and none of that fucking nomi whatever it is bullshit.

[QUOTE=The fox;47099936]Most likely meaning that when you release drugs for free onto a market, such as the case with cigarettes and alcohol is, is that kids will find it easier to get. Though, I can agree with that sentiment, but i'd rather see kids not doing drugs at all, could care the less what people over 18 do.[/QUOTE] We're in agreement there. I don't want to see kids doing any drugs but I'd be more upset over cigarettes than marijuana if I caught my child smoking. Assuming the dealer didn't put formaldehyde in it or some crazy shit, it does little harm. Don't get me wrong, smoking anything isn't ideal but cigarettes are awful. Also I found that it was way easier to get weed than alcohol. Cigarettes are really easy to get since the age of 18 and most high school students have at least one 18 year old friend and sometimes the parents even provided them. How many kids in high school have a 21 year old friend outside of their senior year?

[QUOTE=cody8295;47103114]Legalize all the drugs and have the state produce them and sell them at pharmacies. No more drug crime, no more overdoses attributed to contaminants, much less overdoses in general.[/QUOTE] Legalizing meth, heroin, pcp, or crack? Even if regulated, still doesn't seem like a good idea

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;47104518]Isn't Colorado mandated to dedicate most of that specific tax (less any rebate chunks) into education? I thought I remember reading that it was going to the education budget, but I could be wrong.[/QUOTE] That is correct.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47105290]That's exactly how it worked back in the day when heroin was a common recreational drug and addiction was seen as a failure of willpower, and we've learned a lot since then. I'm all in favor of legalizing weed but there is no good reason to legalize and distribute hard stuff like meth and crack.[/QUOTE] Except we now know a lot more about those drugs that we sold and tons of others. If the state took the time to research which drugs are most commonly used recreationally, and started producing the top 100 most abused recreational drugs and began to distribute them to pharmacies with strict limitations for more addictive substances. The pharmacy which receives the drugs will make up it's own guideline of limitations for each drug, including restrictions on quantity per purchase, purchases per day/week/month/year, blacklisting anybody the pharmacists deem intoxicated, etc. Of course the pharmacies will now have to be much more closely watched and guarded. However, if this ever comes to fruition, I believe we would all be better off.

[QUOTE=cody8295;47106439]Except we now know a lot more about those drugs that we sold and tons of others. If the state took the time to research which drugs are most commonly used recreationally, and started producing the top 100 most abused recreational drugs and began to distribute them to pharmacies with strict limitations for more addictive substances. The pharmacy which receives the drugs will make up it's own guideline of limitations for each drug, including restrictions on quantity per purchase, purchases per day/week/month/year, blacklisting anybody the pharmacists deem intoxicated, etc. Of course the pharmacies will now have to be much more closely watched and guarded. However, if this ever comes to fruition, I believe we would all be better off.[/QUOTE] So you want to legalize [URL="http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/commonly-abused-drugs-charts/commonly-abused-drugs-chart"]all of these[/URL] (excluding nicotine, alcohol, and prescription meds) and then go find 81 more? You basically cannot die from weed, so the state has no qualms about it. These other ones, though... I'm not sure the state should be involved in the distribution of meth and heroin. That doesn't help us at all. Maybe cool it with the catnip.

[QUOTE=cody8295;47103092]Colorado high school student use of weed went down half a percent the year after legalization took effect. Sources are easily found on google, I'll find them if requested but I'm lazy right now.[/QUOTE] politicians listening to data that contradicts their held assumptions?! preposterous!

[QUOTE=cody8295;47106439]Except we now know a lot more about those drugs that we sold and tons of others. If the state took the time to research which drugs are most commonly used recreationally, and started producing the top 100 most abused recreational drugs and began to distribute them to pharmacies with strict limitations for more addictive substances. The pharmacy which receives the drugs will make up it's own guideline of limitations for each drug, including restrictions on quantity per purchase, purchases per day/week/month/year, blacklisting anybody the pharmacists deem intoxicated, etc. Of course the pharmacies will now have to be much more closely watched and guarded. However, if this ever comes to fruition, I believe we would all be better off.[/QUOTE] I can't think of a better way to spur rampant addiction, drug abuse, and crime than for the state to provide just enough of any kind of hard drug you like to get you hooked, then force you to turn to a dealer to sustain your dependency.

Can we just, like, mute bloomberg? He's honestly one of the stupidest people I've ever heard speak. It's a wonder he's in any sort of public office. He legitimately seems like that weird uncle that no one invites to family gatherings because he starts rambling about stupid shit and being backhandedly racist.

[QUOTE=Snowmew;47106902]So you want to legalize [URL="http://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/commonly-abused-drugs-charts/commonly-abused-drugs-chart"]all of these[/URL] (excluding nicotine, alcohol, and prescription meds) and then go find 81 more? You basically cannot die from weed, so the state has no qualms about it. These other ones, though... I'm not sure the state should be involved in the distribution of meth and heroin. That doesn't help us at all. Maybe cool it with the catnip.[/QUOTE] Actually it would help us tons, like i mentioned before nobody would be required to get their fix on the black market. Purer and well scaled products means less danger in taking it for the consumer. Alcohol cigs and prescription meds already work this way, why not go for gold? [editline]9th February 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;47107190]I can't think of a better way to spur rampant addiction, drug abuse, and crime than for the state to provide just enough of any kind of hard drug you like to get you hooked, then force you to turn to a dealer to sustain your dependency.[/QUOTE] My god how wrong you are. Making available drugs to the US through state channels that are already available on the black market would likely lower addiction and overall abuse

[QUOTE=cody8295;47108422]Actually it would help us tons, like i mentioned before nobody would be required to get their fix on the black market. Purer and well scaled products means less danger in taking it for the consumer. Alcohol cigs and prescription meds already work this way, why not go for gold?[/QUOTE] You just said that there would be limits and people may be turned away. Did you forget that? So, yes, people would still be required to get their fix on the black market. The drugs you're proposing are not social things. People who use them suffer from very real addictions, which would often envelop their lives and make them become one of the users which get turned away. So, basically, you are not helping the actual addicts, and you are making drugs much, much easier to obtain for people looking to enter the market. There is always danger in taking drugs of that caliber. There may be less deaths from fucked batches but you are now suggesting that the state support and endorse almost all possible drug addictions. Alcohol and tobacco were huge, and have been huge, since the founding of this country. I don't think meth was a big problem back then. Prohibition was an enormous failure because alcohol was already immensely popular. Heroin is not. Prescription medicines save lives. Crack cocaine does not. [QUOTE=cody8295;47108422]My god how wrong you are. Making available drugs to the US through state channels that are already available on the black market would likely lower addiction and overall abuse[/QUOTE] And your reasoning for that is? Marijuana is not hugely addictive to begin with, and that is the only case for which we have empirical data.

[QUOTE=cody8295;47108422]My god how wrong you are. Making available drugs to the US through state channels that are already available on the black market would likely lower addiction and overall abuse[/QUOTE] Except you're not proposing making them available, you're proposing making them available in regulated quantities. Either the regulated quantity is enough that people can fuck themselves up and die, or it's not enough to sustain an addiction and then people turn to dealers to get a 'real' fix. I'm not sure you realize how awful and addictive drugs like heroin and meth are.

[QUOTE=catbarf;47109615]Except you're not proposing making them available, you're proposing making them available in regulated quantities. Either the regulated quantity is enough that people can fuck themselves up and die, or it's not enough to sustain an addiction and then people turn to dealers to get a 'real' fix. I'm not sure you realize how awful and addictive drugs like heroin and meth are.[/QUOTE] I'm going to weigh in, as someone with firsthand experience. Heroin is incredibly addictive. Heroin is incredibly dangerous. Heroin users are also incredibly stigmatized, and often are afraid of seeking help, fearing legal and social repercussions. One of the biggest dangers with heroin is the inconsistent quality. Heroin comes to areas in waves. In many areas, a handful of high-level dealers will distribute batches of heroin to mid- and low-level dealers, eventually going to street users. If a new batch tainted with fentanyl comes into an area, there's a wave of overdoses from users accustomed to poorer-quality product [1]. Harm reduction methods such as providing safe injection sites work [2]. Doesn't it make sense to investigate further harm reduction, such as product of consistent quality? [1] [url]http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/feeling-the-pain-another-wave-of-fentanyl-overdoses-hits-vermont/Content?oid=2468365[/url] [2] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervised_injection_site#Evaluations[/url]